State v. Mitchell, 2022 Ohio 4355

Officers responded to a report of men filming a rap video in an apartment-complex parking lot; a .380 handgun was recovered from under the front passenger seat of a white Jeep connected to the scene.
Police developed Mitchell as a suspect; a mail piece in the Jeep and police database information linked him to unit 8 at a Kentucky Avenue apartment complex; a rental agent (though Mitchell not on the lease) identified him as residing there.
Officers went to unit 8 with an arrest warrant for having weapons under disability, knocked and announced, waited ~30 minutes while hearing movement and seeing Mitchell at the window, used a key to open the door (furniture blocked it), then pushed it fully open; Mitchell emerged naked and was arrested.
Officers conducted a protective sweep to retrieve clothing and observed marijuana in plain view inside the apartment; Mitchell was indicted for having a weapon while under disability (with a forfeiture spec for a COBRA .38 handgun) and for possession and trafficking in marijuana.
Mitchell moved to suppress the marijuana (arguing he was a guest so entry required a warrant), pleaded no contest, was convicted and sentenced; the court ordered generic forfeiture of "firearms," and Mitchell appealed.
The appellate court affirmed denial of the suppression motion but found plain error: it ordered merger of the trafficking and possession convictions and corrected the forfeiture to apply only to the handgun specified in the indictment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of entry/arrest at unit 8 (motion to suppress)	Officers reasonably believed Mitchell lived at unit 8 (police databases, mail in Jeep, rental-agent ID, observed at window), so arrest-warrant entry exception applied	Mitchell was an overnight guest, not a resident; police needed a separate search warrant to enter the apartment	Denied suppression — trial-court factual findings supported; officers had a reasonable belief Mitchell resided there and was present, so entry was lawful
Merger of marijuana trafficking and possession	State maintained convictions could stand	Mitchell argued trafficking and possession arose from same conduct and must merge as allied offenses	Reversed in part — plain error; trafficking and possession are allied here and must be merged
Scope of firearms forfeiture	State conceded forfeiture should be limited to handgun specified in indictment	Mitchell challenged the judgment’s broad order forfeiting "firearms" unrelated to the specified weapon	Reversed in part — plain error; forfeiture must be limited to the Cobra .38 handgun identified in the forfeiture specification

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (arrest-warrant entry principles for a suspect’s dwelling)
State v. Martin, 90 N.E.3d 857 (Ohio 2017) (an arrest warrant implicitly authorizes limited entry into a dwelling where the suspect lives if probable cause suggests presence)
State v. Foster, 90 N.E.3d 1282 (1st Dist. 2017) (standard of appellate review for suppression — accept trial-court factual findings if supported, review legal application de novo)
State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (two-step appellate review for motions to suppress)
State v. Cabrales, 886 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio 2008) (defendant may be convicted of only one of allied offenses of similar import)
State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (three-part test for whether offenses are allied and must merge)
City of Xenia v. Wallace, 524 N.E.2d 889 (Ohio 1988) (defendant must raise suppression grounds at the suppression hearing or waive them on appeal)
State v. Wintermeyer, 145 N.E.3d 278 (Ohio 2019) (arguments not raised at suppression hearing are waived on appeal)