State v. Menchu, 2017 Ohio 8252

On Oct. 28, 2014, task-force officers surveilled 2149 East Fifth Street in Dayton and observed Jose Menchu enter and shortly thereafter leave the residence carrying a grocery bag, then drive away in a blue panel van.
Deputy Joseph Caito followed the van and stopped it after observing the van’s rear license-plate light was not illuminated; Menchu admitted he lacked legal immigration status and a driver’s license.
A K-9 gave a passive alert; a search of the van produced a grocery bag containing 487 grams of cocaine. Menchu was arrested, taken back to the residence, consented to a home search, and made incriminating statements after waiving Miranda rights.
Menchu was indicted for possession and trafficking in cocaine. He moved to suppress some evidence at various times; those motions were denied. He waived a jury and was convicted at a bench trial; convictions merged and he was sentenced to 11 years on the trafficking count.
On appeal Menchu argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence from the van, asserting the traffic stop lacked constitutional basis because the plate illumination statute was not violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence from the van stop	The State argues the stop was lawful because Caito observed the rear license-plate light was not illuminated, providing reasonable articulable suspicion/probable cause for a traffic stop	Menchu argues the stop lacked statutory violation proof (no testimony plate was legible from 50 feet; dusk lighting meant plate illumination not required), so suppression would have been successful	Counsel was not ineffective: record supports that the plate light was not illuminated after sunset/dusk and the stop was lawful; strategic decision not to move to suppress was reasonable, so Strickland first prong not met

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio formulation of Strickland; burden to show substantial violation of counsel’s duties)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (authorizes brief investigatory stops on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (traffic stop lawful when based on probable cause of traffic violation even if officer has ulterior motive)
State v. Murphy, 91 Ohio St.3d 516 (counsel not required to pursue every conceivable avenue; strategic choices are presumptively reasonable)
United States v. Davenport, 986 F.2d 1047 (attorneys entitled to be selective in litigation strategy)