State v. Sheridan, 2011 Ohio 6011

On March 13, 2009, Officer observed Sheridan drive erratically, park between two vacant houses, and approach authorities after refusal to show license.
Sheridan was arrested for driving without a license after it was confirmed he lacked a valid license.
A search of Sheridan’s person incident to arrest revealed marijuana and 9mm ammunition; no weapons were found on Sheridan himself.
Meanwhile, officers searched the vehicle and found a loaded handgun wedged between the driver’s seat and center console.
A February 17, 2010 grand jury indicted Sheridan for carrying a concealed weapon (felony of the fourth degree) under R.C. 2923.12(A)(2).
Sheridan moved to suppress the vehicle search; the trial court denied the motion; Sheridan pled no contest and was convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the vehicle search was lawful after Gant	Sheridan argues the search was unlawful under Gant and the Fourth Amendment.	State argues the search fits an exception to the warrant requirement or was permitted by officer safety/evidentiary concerns.	Search invalid under Gant; suppression affirmed

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest; requires reasonable proximity or probable cause)
Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. 2011) (reaffirms Gant framework for automobile searches after arrest)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (establishes reach of search incident to arrest)
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (role of Belton in police automobile searches after arrest)
Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (U.S. 2004) (discusses automobile context and dangers in search incidents)
State v. Grubb, 186 Ohio App.3d 744 (2010-Ohio-1265) (recognizes automobile exception post-Gant in Ohio)
Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (1988) (burden shifting in Fourth Amendment suppression challenges)