State v. Pullen, 2012 Ohio 1858

Pullen was convicted of possession of crack cocaine (less than one gram), a fifth-degree felony, after a suppression ruling and trial.
On March 25, 2010, police observed Pullen enter a purple Ford Taurus and issue a radio alert when he sped away, obstructing traffic.
Officers stopped Pullen for a lane violation; he provided an Ohio ID and Sinclair ID and was arrested for suspended driving privileges.
Because the vehicle blocked an entire traffic lane, the police impounded it under the Dayton Police Tow Policy and conducted an inventory search prior to towing.
During the inventory, Det. Olmstead found crack cocaine on the front passenger seat; Pullen allegedly claimed not to be a dealer and commented on discretion.
Pullen moved to suppress, arguing the inventory/search were improperly conducted or pretextual; the trial court overruled, and a jury found possession.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the inventory search of the impounded vehicle valid?	Pullen argues the tow was improper and the search was investigatory, not a proper inventory.	Pullen contends the vehicle should have been released to the owner; inventory/search lacked proper basis.	Inventory/search valid; tow proper under policy; no Fourth Amendment violation
Did the trial court abuse in admitting Pullen's statements to police during transport?	Godsey’s testimony of statements was probative of knowledge and possession.	Statements were unduly prejudicial character evidence and not probative.	Admission not reversible error; statements relevant to knowledge of possession
Was there sufficient evidence that Pullen knowingly possessed crack cocaine?	Presence of cocaine plus inculpatory statements show knowledge and possession.	Insufficient direct evidence of possession or knowledge.	Sufficient evidence to support conviction; totality of circumstances establishes knowledge

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory searches of impounded vehicles are permissible)
State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St.3d 105 (Ohio 1999) (inventory search exception and standards in Ohio)
State v. Robinson, 58 Ohio St.2d 478 (Ohio 1979) (standard for permissible inventory procedures)
State v. Hankerson, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (Ohio 1982) (constructive possession concepts and proximity evidence)
State v. Teamer, 82 Ohio St.3d 490 (Ohio 1998) (totality of the circumstances in proving possession)
State v. Pounds, 2006-Ohio-3040 (Ohio 2006) (constructive possession and evidentiary considerations)
State v. Jennings ( Jenks ), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
State v. ThompkinS, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency of evidence and standard of review)