State v. Shabazz, 2012 Ohio 3367

Shabazz was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, and having weapons under disability; he moved to suppress the state's evidence after a not guilty plea.
A confidential informant provided information about a firearms sale involving Dejuan Walker, who had an active warrant for attempted murder.
A controlled purchase of four firearms for $1,000 was arranged and monitored by detectives with audio and visual surveillance.
Walker arrived at the location, met the CI, was paid, and indicated the firearms would be moved to the current location shortly; the CI signaled completion.
Walker was stopped as he attempted to enter the vehicle driven by Shabazz; a pat-down occurred and no weapons were found on either man, but a loaded pistol was discovered under the driver’s seat.
The trial court denied the suppression motion; Shabazz pleaded no contest and was sentenced to one year in jail; he appealed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop and vehicle search lawful?	Shabazz	Shabazz	Yes; suppression denial affirmed

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Supreme Court, 1967) (establishes reasonableness under Fourth Amendment)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court, 1969) (search incident to arrest scope)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court, 2009) (limits vehicle searches after arrest)
State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (2009) (Ohio vehicle search incident rule)
State v. Hunter, 8th Dist. No. 97086, 2012-Ohio-2302 (Ohio) (mixed question of law and fact standard for suppression)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (suppression review and evidentiary standards)
State v. Polk, 2005-Ohio-774 (Ohio) (de novo review of law to facts in suppression context)