2017 Ohio 2860
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Officers patrolling after a nearby domestic violence incident smelled marijuana while driving past a parked car at ~midnight and saw two occupants inside the car.
- Officers parked, approached the vehicle with windows down, and asked whether there was marijuana in the car. Richmond (driver) said they had already smoked it.
- Officers observed an open container of alcohol on the passenger seat and had both occupants exit the car and sit in the zone car while conducting an investigatory search.
- During the vehicle search officers found a loaded .38 Ruger under the driver’s seat; a pat-down of Richmond produced a small bag of marijuana.
- Richmond moved to suppress arguing the stop/search was pretextual and unlawful; the trial court denied suppression and he pled no contest.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the initial approach was a consensual encounter and that the odor of marijuana gave reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search under the automobile exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial approach/seizure was lawful | Officers: approach was a consensual encounter; not a seizure | Richmond: stop was pretextual and an unlawful seizure | The approach was a consensual encounter; no Fourth Amendment violation at that stage |
| Whether the odor of marijuana justified continued detention/search | Odor (detected by trained officers) provided reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the vehicle | Odor alone was insufficient; lack of residue or paraphernalia shows pretext | Odor of marijuana alone—when recognized by trained officers—establishes probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception |
| Whether evidence discovered (gun, marijuana) must be suppressed | State: search was lawful so evidence admissible | Richmond: search unlawful so evidence must be suppressed | Evidence admissible because search was supported by probable cause from the marijuana odor |
| Whether absence of burnt marijuana or paraphernalia undermines probable cause | State: corroboration not required; smell alone suffices | Richmond: absence of corroborating evidence shows pretext | Court: corroboration not required; credibility of officers credited, probable cause existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (mixed question standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- Moore v. State, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (odor of marijuana alone can establish probable cause to search a vehicle)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment search and seizure principles)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consensual encounter doctrine; person must be free to decline/terminate encounter)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)