State v. Morrison, 2013 Ohio 928

Undercover officer observed Morrison in the restaurant lot exchanging small items for money through his car window; a narcotics-detection dog alerted at the driver’s-side door handle and dashboard areas after Morrison was stopped.
Morrison was stopped for a traffic violation (unsignaled lane change) and detained; he denied having drugs and was patted down for weapons.
The narcotics dog alerted; officers searched the car but found no narcotics inside.
Based on the dog alerts and Morrison’s agitated demeanor, officers arrested him; a search of his person incident to arrest revealed a small heroin bindle in a waistband pocket.
Morrison moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him by no contest to possession of heroin.
The appellate court affirmed, holding officers had probable cause to arrest Morrison and could conduct a warrantless search incident to arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was probable cause to arrest Morrison without a warrant.	State contends dog alerts and observed drug-sale conduct created probable cause.	Morrison argues the car search was not supported by probable cause to arrest him.	Probable cause existed; search incident to arrest valid.

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (mixed-questions of law and fact for suppression review; de novo on appeal)
State v. Fultz, 13 Ohio St.2d 79 (1968) (probable cause standards for arrest based on broadcast information)
State v. Gilmore, 2008-Ohio-3475 (2008-Ohio) (probable cause from narcotics transactions and dog alerts to arrest)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (constitutional spouse of search incident to arrest)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable-cause standard requires probability, not certainty)
Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (validity of petty-offense arrests with probable cause)