State v. Luther, 2018 Ohio 4568

Police responded to a public urination/indecent exposure report describing a white male in dark pants and a gray shirt; officers shortly observed Dominic Luther riding a bicycle matching that description.
Luther sped away, abandoned the bicycle, and complied when officers asked him to speak; officers conducted a pat-down for officer safety due to perceived evasive behavior and nervousness.
Officer Weber felt a large, sturdy object in Luther’s right front pocket; Luther said it was "cigarettes." The officer removed a metal clamshell cigarette case from the pocket.
Officer Weber opened the metal case, saw a razor blade, two syringes, and a folded paper with off-white powder; lab testing later identified heroin, fentanyl, and carfentanil.
Luther moved to suppress evidence from the search; the trial court denied the motion, he pled no contest, was sentenced to community control, and appealed.
The court of appeals held the initial pat-down and removal of the case were supported by reasonable suspicion, but opening the case exceeded Terry’s protective-search limits and thus violated the Fourth Amendment; the denial of suppression was reversed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers lawfully conducted a protective pat-down and seizure of an object found in Luther’s pocket	The officers had reasonable suspicion that Luther was armed/dangerous (evasive behavior, sweating, looking for escape), justifying a frisk and removal of a possibly dangerous object	The officers lacked specific articulable facts to justify a search beyond a brief investigatory stop and any search exceeded Terry	Pat-down and removal of the metal case were lawful under Terry based on officer safety concerns
Whether officers lawfully opened the seized metal cigarette case during the frisk	Opening the container was necessary to determine if it contained a weapon that could harm officers	Once the container was identified as a cigarette case and in officers’ hands, there was no reasonable basis to believe it contained a weapon; opening was a pretextive search for contraband	Opening the case exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry frisk; further intrusion was unjustified and violated the Fourth Amendment

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes limited stop-and-frisk authority for officer safety)
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (permitting limited protective searches during investigatory encounters)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to states)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on warrantless searches incident to arrest)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (reasonableness is the touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (officer may seize object reasonably believed to be a weapon; must stop frisk once object is determined not to be a weapon)
State v. Polk, 150 Ohio St.3d 29 (appellate standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Howard, 2013-Ohio-2123 (2d Dist.) (discusses container size and realistic risk to officer safety in evaluating container searches)