State v. Nelms, 2017 Ohio 1466

Police arranged three controlled heroin buys tied to 3606 West Third Street; buyer/seller observations linked sales to a white Buick and to Jordan Alford, who repeatedly parked at and entered the building.
A warrant issued authorizing search of the commercial garage at 3606 West Third Street, the persons (including Alford), and the building’s “surrounding curtilage” for drugs and paraphernalia.
When police executed the warrant, the white Buick was gone; officers surveilled the premises and observed a blue Monte Carlo (Nelms’s vehicle) parked directly in front of the building with repeated passenger activity and Alford entering/exiting the vehicle and then the building.
Police executed the warrant, conducted a protective sweep of the Monte Carlo (no occupants or visible contraband), arrested occupants inside the building, then performed a full search of the Monte Carlo under the warrant’s curtilage language and found cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and Alford’s paperwork.
Nelms was indicted for possession of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, moved to suppress the vehicle evidence as outside the warrant scope, lost at the suppression hearing, pleaded no contest to two counts, and appealed the suppression ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a warrant authorizing a search of a commercial building and its “surrounding curtilage” permits searching a vehicle parked in front of the building	Warrant covers the area described as surrounding curtilage, which includes the parked vehicle; officers reasonably believed the car was associated with the premises and Alford	The area in front of a commercial building was public/no curtilage; vehicle not within scope of warrant	The court held the vehicle was within the warrant’s scope: parked directly in front of the property, activity tied it to Alford and the premises, so searching it was authorized.
If vehicle were not covered by warrant, whether exclusionary rule bars evidence under good-faith exception	Search was in good faith under a reasonable belief the warrant covered the vehicle; suppression not required	Evidence should be suppressed because warrant did not clearly include the vehicle	Court applied the good-faith exception: officers acted reasonably and not deliberately/recklessly, so exclusion was inappropriate.

Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (curtilage is treated as part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (lawful search of premises extends to areas where objects of the search may be found, including containers)
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (officers may search passengers’ belongings in a car capable of concealing objects for which there is probable cause)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary-rule suppression requires sufficiently deliberate or culpable police misconduct; good-faith exception limits exclusion)
State v. Halczyszak, 25 Ohio St.3d 301 (1986) (search of premises limited to areas that may reasonably contain items listed in warrant)