State v. Moore
2022 Ohio 283
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Dayton officer stopped a silver Chevy Trailblazer for a possible window-tint violation; Donavan Moore was driving.
- Officer learned Moore’s driver’s license was suspended and the vehicle’s registered owner (Tasia Owens) was not on scene.
- Under the Dayton Police tow policy in effect June 6, 2019, officers could tow vehicles when the driver’s license was suspended and owner was not present; the policy required a pre-tow inventory.
- Officer placed Moore in handcuffs for officer-safety/uncooperativeness, ordered the vehicle to be towed, and an inventory search of the vehicle revealed large amounts of narcotics and cash.
- Moore’s suppression motion arguing the tow/inventory violated policy and was a pretext was denied; he pled no contest to possession of heroin (first-degree felony) and was sentenced to six years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Moore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of impoundment/tow | Tow was authorized under Dayton policy because driver’s license was suspended and owner not present | Officer should have contacted owner first; tow and inventory violated department policy | Tow lawful; policy in effect allowed towing without contacting owner when owner absent |
| Validity of inventory search | Inventory was required by policy and conducted in good faith under standardized procedures | Search was a pretextual investigatory search to discover incriminating evidence | Inventory search lawful; not a pretext; procedure followed |
| Pretext claim based on officer seeing money | Officer’s detection of money occurred after tow decision; officer had other means (canine sniff) if seeking drugs | Officer saw cash and used that as a pretext to detain and search | No evidence search was pretextual; timeline and officer testimony refute the claim |
| Standard of review for suppression findings | Trial court’s factual findings are binding; appellate court reviews application of law de novo | Same | Appellate court accepted trial court’s factual findings and independently reviewed legal conclusions; affirmed denial of suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (recognizes inventory exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement)
- State v. Brinkley, 824 N.E.2d 959 (Ohio 2005) (trial court credibility and factual findings at suppression hearings are given deference on appeal)