State v. Reese, 2019 Ohio 399

Background

On Aug. 17, 2017 Reese struck the vehicle ahead at an intersection; his car sustained front-end damage and was disabled in the roadway. He lacked a valid license and insurance.
Urbana police ordered the vehicle towed under department General Order 28 and completed an inventory of the vehicle before towing.
During the inventory the officer opened an unlocked gym bag and found drug paraphernalia and controlled-substance pills. Reese was given Miranda warnings, failed field sobriety tests, and was arrested.
A grand jury indicted Reese on six counts including aggravated possession of methamphetamine, possession of cocaine, possession of clonazepam, paraphernalia, and OVI.
Reese moved to suppress the items seized from the gym bag, arguing the inventory search was a pretext; the trial court denied the motion. Reese later pled no contest to preserve the suppression issue and was convicted and sentenced to community control.
On appeal Reese argued (1) the inventory search exceeded its permissible scope and (2) trial counsel was ineffective at the suppression hearing. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Reese)	Held
Were items found in the gym bag admissible under the inventory-search exception to the Fourth Amendment?	Inventory was performed pursuant to a valid, standardized department policy after towing a disabled vehicle; opening unlocked containers comports with policy and precedents.	The search exceeded the scope of a lawful inventory search and was a pretextual evidentiary search; opening the gym bag required greater justification.	Affirmed: inventory search lawful; General Order 28 authorized inventory of unlocked containers and officer testimony supported that the vehicle was disabled.
Did the officer have authority to tow and impound the vehicle, permitting an inventory?	Yes; vehicle was disabled and obstructing traffic, satisfying policy and R.C. removal authority.	Towing was not justified solely by inoperability; alternatives (move vehicle) were not explored.	Affirmed: officer testimony that vehicle was disabled was competent, credible evidence supporting tow and inventory.
Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance at the suppression hearing by failing to probe damage/move-attempts?	Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; record shows officer testified vehicle was disabled.	Counsel should have questioned extent of damage and attempts to move the vehicle to undermine the inventory justification.	Affirmed: Reese failed Strickland prejudice prong; no showing that more questioning would have changed the ruling.
Was counsel ineffective for not subpoenaing passenger or other officer to testify at suppression hearing?	Not prejudicial; no record evidence what those witnesses would have shown and their testimony would not negate vehicle inoperability.	Their testimony might have shown a licensed unimpaired passenger could have driven the car, avoiding inventory.	Affirmed: speculative benefit insufficient on direct appeal; postconviction is proper vehicle for evidence dehors the record.

Key Cases Cited

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes protection against unreasonable searches requiring exceptions to the warrant rule)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Fourth Amendment limits on stop-and-frisk context)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches of impounded vehicles are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement)
State v. Leak, 47 N.E.3d 821 (Ohio Supreme Court: inventory searches pursuant to standard police procedures on impounded vehicles are reasonable)
State v. Hathman, 604 N.E.2d 743 (Ohio St.: closed containers within vehicles may be opened during an inventory if governed by standardized policy)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio St.: mixed question of law and fact standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)