State v. Raslovsky
152 N.E.3d 402
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- June 2018 traffic stop after officers following a car from an area with drug complaints; vehicle stopped for a turn-signal violation; driver plus three passengers (including Raslovsky).
- Driver consented to a search of her purse and the vehicle; officers later deployed a drug dog and ordered occupants out of the car.
- Whether Raslovsky exited with her purse was disputed; audio/video evidence shows an officer told her to leave it in the vehicle.
- The drug dog alerted on the passenger side; officers searched the vehicle and Raslovsky’s purse and found crack cocaine; Raslovsky admitted it was crack.
- Raslovsky moved to suppress; trial court denied the motion; she pleaded no contest, was sentenced, and appealed arguing the driver’s consent and the automobile exception did not justify searching her purse.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driver’s consent to search the vehicle authorized search of passenger Raslovsky’s purse | State conceded driver’s consent did not authorize search of Raslovsky’s purse | Raslovsky: driver’s consent cannot be imputed to her purse | Court: Agreed — driver’s consent did not authorize search of Raslovsky’s purse |
| Whether the automobile exception (dog sniff alert) justified searching Raslovsky’s purse | Dog sniff was lawful; dog’s alert gave probable cause to search vehicle and containers (Houghton/Ross/Harris) | Raslovsky: a held/attached purse is like part of the person and needs arrest or particularized probable cause | Court: Dog sniff lawful; alert produced probable cause to search vehicle and containers; purse in vehicle therefore searchable; court also found she was not holding the purse when told to leave it |
| Whether ordering the passenger to leave her purse in the car improperly created a right to search it | State relied on Houghton/Mercier: containers in car capable of hiding contraband are searchable | Raslovsky relied on Boyd, Tognotti, Caulfield: officer cannot create a right to search by ordering purse left in car; held purses get heightened privacy | Court: Declined to adopt a per se rule for held purses; relied on Mercier/Houghton and facts showing purse was not on Raslovsky’s person when left in car; suppression denial upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (if probable cause justifies a vehicle search, it justifies searching every part that may conceal the object)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (passengers’ belongings in a car capable of concealing contraband are searchable)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (exterior dog sniff of a vehicle is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (dog alert can establish probable cause to search)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (search-incident-to-arrest rule includes passenger compartment and containers)
- State v. Mercier, 885 N.E.2d 942 (Ohio Sup. Ct. affirmed search of passenger’s purse on authority of Houghton)
- State v. Caulfield, 995 N.E.2d 941 (2d Dist. holding purse search unlawful where officer ordered passenger to leave purse without probable cause)
- State v. Boyd, 64 P.3d 419 (Kan. Sup. Ct. holding officer-ordered leave-of-purse then search violates passenger’s Fourth Amendment rights)