State v. Mechling, 2013 Ohio 3327

On May 19, 2012 Officer Garrison responded to a loud-music complaint at a residence; noise and an open garage at the rear of the property were audible/visible from the street.
As the officer approached the detached rear garage by walking through the front/side yard, he heard a female say to a male, “get that fat joint out of your pocket.”
The officer walked around the corner, repeated, “Yeah, why don’t you get it out,” and asked the male (Mechling) what was in his pockets.
Mechling said nothing; the officer asked to see his pockets; Mechling reached in and partially removed items, revealing marijuana and rolling papers.
Mechling was cited for marijuana possession and paraphernalia; he moved to suppress the evidence. The municipal court denied the motion; Mechling appealed.
The appellate court (Fifth District, Ohio) affirmed that the officer’s approach was permissible but reversed the denial of the suppression motion because the officer’s statement was a command that rendered the search nonconsensual and unsupported by probable cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer lawfully entered/approached the curtilage to investigate loud music	Officer was on legitimate business and went where a reasonable citizen may go (walkway/side yard to garage)	Officer trespassed on curtilage/grass; could have used public driveway/sidewalk	Held for State — approach was permissible; no Fourth Amendment search in that approach
Whether officer’s request to “get it out” and asking to see pockets was a consensual search or an unlawful seizure/search requiring probable cause	Interaction was consensual or permissible investigatory encounter; items were voluntarily produced	The officer’s statement was a command/ show of authority making the encounter a seizure; no probable cause for warrantless search/arrest	Held for Mechling — officer’s comment was tantamount to an order, the search was nonconsensual, and there was insufficient probable cause; suppression required

Payton v. New York, 455 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry rules; exceptions to warrant requirement)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (expectation of privacy and public-exposure principle)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (when Fourth Amendment search occurs)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (open view/public exposure limits privacy expectations)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (curtilage is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes)
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (factors to determine curtilage)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard on appellate review of factual/legal application)