State v. Mabry
2015 Ohio 4513
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Mabry was indicted for possessing heroin in an amount less than one gram and moved to suppress; suppression denied.
- Officer Howard stopped Mabry and another man for jaywalking in a high-crime Dayton area referenced as near East 4th Street and Columbus Street on Oct. 4, 2013.
- Howard recognized Mabry from a prior arrest during a search warrant execution at a Garfield Street residence linked to drugs, robberies, and a homicide.
- A pat-down for weapons was performed; during the pat-down, bulges in Mabry’s pants pockets were felt; after the pat-down Mabry consented to searching his pockets.
- Howard retrieved a bag with gel capsules from Mabry’s pocket; Mabry said, while being searched, that he was wearing boxers and shorts and that he was high.
- The trial court credited Howard’s testimony, found the pat-down justified, and held Mabry’s consent to search was voluntary; Mabry pled no contest to the heroin possession and received community-control sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warrantless search of Mabry’s pockets valid? | State contends consent was voluntary and the plain-feel exception applied. | Mabry contends consent was not voluntary and the search was unlawful. | Search valid; consent voluntary and plain-feel seizure justified. |
| Is Mabry's post-discovery statement admissible under Miranda? | Statement was admissible; not a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. | Statement should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful search and custodial interrogation. | Statement admissible; not the result of custodial interrogation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent search requires voluntary consent)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonableness of privacy expectations and searches)
- posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 1988) (clear and positive evidence required for voluntary consent)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2002) (police not required to inform of right to refuse consent)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976) (consent to search on public street valid)
- State v. Hinton, 2013-Ohio-3381 (Ohio 2013) (plain-feel exception to seize contraband after lawful search)
- State v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1993) (plain-feel requires immediate recognition of contraband)