State v. Smith, 2013 Ohio 114

Smith was stopped for following too close; odor of burnt marihuana and loose marihuana were observed in vehicle and on Smith and Carey.
Smith admitted to smoking marihuana and produced a baggie containing about 10 grams of marihuana, though no contraband was found on him after initial searches.
Carey, the passenger, was found with a large object between his buttocks; troopers suspected crack cocaine but could not positively identify it during the initial search.
Smith and Carey were transported to a patrol post where Carey’s crack cocaine later was found between his buttocks; Smith was processed in investigative custody.
Smith made incriminating statements after the discovery of crack cocaine on Carey, approximately 15 minutes after arriving at the post.
Smith moved to suppress the statements, arguing they were obtained during an unlawful detention; the trial court denied the motion and Smith appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statements were admissible after suppression denial	Smith	State	denied; sufficient evidence of complicity supported detention

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Supreme Court 1967) (establishes warrantless-search rule and exclusionary implications)
Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio Supreme Court 1999) (burden shifts to state after illegality; per se unreasonable searches unless exceptions)
State v. Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d 389 (Ohio Supreme Court 2001) (identical protection of Ohio Constitution and Fourth Amendment)
State v. Helton, 160 Ohio App.3d 291 (Ohio Appellate 11th Dist. 2005) (exclusionary rule extends to derivative evidence)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court 1983) (limits on detention scope and duration during a stop)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio Supreme Court 2003) (mixed questions of law and fact in suppression review; reasonable suspicion standard)