State v. Smith, 2011 Ohio 6872

Parole Officer Polinori received an anonymous tip that parolee Toriano Howard was selling drugs and possessing a firearm at an apartment.
Polinori verified Howard leased and resided at apartment #11, 139 17th Street NW, Canton, Ohio, under post-release conditions subject to warrantless searches.
Officers surrounded the apartment, asked Appellant Smith about occupants, and performed a protective sweep after he claimed uncertainty about others inside.
In the swept room, officers found something suspected to be cocaine, cash, and a scale in plain view, and the bedroom was later determined to belong to Appellant.
A search warrant followed; Appellant was charged with multiple cocaine trafficking and possession offenses.
Appellant moved to suppress the seized evidence; the trial court denied the motion; he pleaded no contest and was sentenced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suppression court properly denied the search	State argued lawful entry under probation search and plain-view discovery	Smith argued Fourth Amendment violation from unlawful entry and search	Motion to suppress denied; entry and search upheld

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep permissible to ensure safety in context of lawful entry)
State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68 (1999) (probation search without warrant with reasonable grounds)
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (probation search exception to warrant requirement)
State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37 (1993) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; mixed questions of law and fact)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (manifest weight review of trial court findings)
State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App.3d 486 (1991) (review of suppression decisions on appeal)
State v. Metcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142 (1996) (standard for appellate review of suppression)