State v. Morton, 2014 Ohio 1434

Appellant Darius Morton was charged with one count of drug possession under R.C. 2925.11(A) after a pill found on his person during a traffic stop led to a conviction at jury trial.
Officer Reese stopped Morton for a minor traffic violation and, upon confirming a suspended license, arrested Morton and conducted a search incident to arrest.
A pill was found; laboratory testing later showed it was BTCP, a schedule one substance sold as ecstasy, not MDMA as the officer believed.
Morton was sentenced to one year of community control and a six-month driver's license suspension after the plea and sentencing.
Morton argues his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a suppression motion to exclude the seized evidence, claiming the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress the evidence seized in the search?	State contends the search was lawful and suppression would fail.	Morton asserts counsel's failure to file suppression deprived him of a trial using unlawfully obtained evidence.	No; suppression would have been futile; stop and search were within valid Fourth Amendment parameters.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established the general warrant prohibition principle)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (traffic violations justify stops regardless of ulterior motive)
Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (stop based on a traffic violation is reasonable under state law)
State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (2009) (search-incident-to-arrest exception governs scope of permissible search)
State v. Sanders, 94 Ohio St.3d 150 (2002) (ineffective-assistance standard and reasonable probability concept)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice)