State v. Thompson, 2014 Ohio 4244

Thompson was indicted on multiple drug- and gun-related offenses following a February 13, 2013 encounter with Dayton police at a Walgreen’s and a nearby cell phone store.
Officer Hieber observed Thompson commit traffic violations, then detained him inside the store to address the violations.
During the encounter Thompson became uncooperative and reached toward his pocket, prompting a protective pat-down.
A concealed cellophane bag with heroin was discovered during the pat-down outside the store after Thompson was handcuffed.
A warrantless inventory search of Thompson’s vehicle yielded marijuana and other contraband; a later search warrant for the locked trunk and glove box recovered further contraband.
The trial court denied Thompson’s motion to suppress, and Thompson pled no contest to some counts; the court sentenced him to prison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Thompson lawfully detained in the store?	Thompson argues detention was unlawful.	Thompson contends the store detention violated Fourth Amendment standards.	Detention in the store was lawful.
Was the initial pat-down justified?	The pat-down was not warranted as there was no reason to suspect a weapon.	The totality of circumstances justified a protective pat-down.	Pat-down justified under Terry due to defendant’s behavior and safety concerns.
Did handcuffing convert the stop into an arrest?	Handcuffing transformed the stop into an arrest without probable cause.	Handcuffing was reasonable to complete the pat-down and prevent flight.	Handcuffing did not convert the investigative detention into an arrest.
Is the initial vehicle search permissible without a warrant?	The initial vehicle search was an unlawful warrantless search.	The search falls under the inventory exception.	The initial search lacked a standardized inventory policy, thus not per inventory exception; later warrant supported the locked portions.
Was there probable cause for the warrant for locked portions based on odor?	Odor evidence alone should not justify a warrant.	Odor of marijuana provided probable cause to search the locked areas.	Probable cause existed from odor, supporting a valid warrant for locked portions.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court (1968)) (establishes stop-and-frisk framework for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (2d Dist.1994) (binding on suppression factual findings; independent legal review)
State v. Jones, 70 Ohio App.3d 554 (2d Dist.1990) (permits brief detentions for traffic violations; reasonable suspicion not required)
State v. Brown, 2004-Ohio-4058 (2d Dist.) (detention for traffic violation context)
State v. Lawson, 180 Ohio App.3d 516 (2009-Ohio-62) (articulable facts justify pat-down for weapons)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (search incident-to-pat-down standard; safety of officer/others)
State v. Phillips, 155 Ohio App.3d 149 (2d Dist.2003) (identity of object may be inferred from police experience)
State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (odor-based probable cause to search marijuana)
State v. Chase, 2013-Ohio-2346 (2d Dist.) (odor as basis for probable cause to search)