State v. Ohlert, 2013 Ohio 2579

Ohlert and a female companion matched burglary descriptions and were approached by an off-duty Dayton detective in an unmarked car.
The detective spoke with them, explaining a burglary occurred nearby and that an officer would check IDs when available.
A second officer arrived and took over, and he asked to perform a pat-down for weapons.
During the pat-down, Ohlert shifted, causing the syringe needle end to protrude and become plainly visible to the officer.
The officer seized the syringe and Ohlert was arrested; Ohlert moved to suppress the evidence as unlawfully obtained.
The trial court denied suppression; Ohlert pled no contest and was sentenced to jail with probation and treatment; the issue on appeal is whether the stop/search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the encounter with police was consensual.	Ohlert contends the encounter was seizure-like and not consensual.	Ohlert argues the encounter was coerced or involuntary.	Consensual encounter; not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the pat-down was voluntary consent and valid.	Ohlert asserts lack of voluntary, informed consent to the pat-down.	Ohlert consented to the pat-down when asked if he minded.	Consent to the pat-down was voluntary.
Whether the syringe discovered was admissible as plain view during a lawful pat-down.	The syringe could be seized only if in plain view during a lawful search.	Syringe was found during pat-down and immediately apparent as contraband.	Syringe was admissible under plain-view/tinged-with-probable-cause reasoning.

U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (establishes seizure framework when movement is restrained)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view/feel–incriminating object during pat-down admissible if immediately apparent)
State v. Halczyszak, 25 Ohio St.3d 301 (1986) (probable cause to associate object with crime; plain view)