2023 Ohio 1114
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Early-morning traffic stop (4:20 a.m.) of an Acura with expired plates; driver was Kevin Trego who said he had recently acquired the car from a relative.
- Officer removed occupants, conducted a personal search and an inventory-style search of the vehicle; found a clear container with crystalline residue in Trego’s pocket, a green pipe beside the driver seat, and a bag with crystalline substance in the sun-visor area above the driver’s seat.
- BCI testing showed the bagged crystalline substance was methamphetamine (≈0.29 g); the residue in the pocket and the pipe were not tested.
- Record unclear whether the vehicle was formally impounded; officer’s inventory sheet omitted VIN and other impound details; the officer’s report later said the vehicle was released to a tow company.
- Jury convicted Trego of aggravated possession (fifth-degree felony); trial court imposed community control (later revoked and converted to 12 months). Trego appealed asserting (1) improper inventory search, (2) ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress, and (3) conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Trego) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the vehicle search an unlawful warrantless search (inventory-search exception)? | Search was a lawful inventory/caretaking search; circumstances and procedures justify admission of items. | Officer did not follow inventory procedures (VIN omitted); vehicle may not have been lawfully impounded and search timing was improper. | Court rejected Trego’s challenges: inventory exception could apply despite timing/record gaps; omission of VIN not fatal. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not filing a suppression motion? | Even if counsel did not move to suppress, appellant cannot show a meritorious suppression basis and resulting prejudice. | Failure to file suppression was deficient and prejudicial because the search was unconstitutional. | Court applied Strickland/Kimmelman framework and held Trego failed to show a viable suppression basis or prejudice. |
| Was conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence? | State: circumstantial evidence (meth in plain reach of driver, pipe nearby, residue in pocket, Trego’s admitted drug history) supports constructive/knowing possession. | Trego: he lacked knowledge; he had just acquired the car and had not cleaned it; pocket residue untested; state evidence primarily circumstantial. | Court held jury did not lose its way; circumstantial evidence and jury credibility findings sustained the conviction. |
| Should this Court remand for an evidentiary hearing because the record is silent on impoundment? | State: no remand; appellant bears burden to show error from the record. | Trego: remand needed to develop facts about impoundment and inventory procedures. | Court refused remand: defendant waived suppression by not moving below and failed to carry burden on appeal; Groce distinguishable. |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory search of an impounded vehicle reasonable)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory searches are a well-defined exception to warrant requirement)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (searches outside judicial process are per se unreasonable absent exceptions)
- State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St.3d 105 (inventory searches are an established exception under Ohio law)
- State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 (limits on warrantless retrieval of personal items; inventory exception analyzed)
- State v. Hathman, 65 Ohio St.3d 403 (inventory of lawfully impounded vehicle must be in good faith and according to standardized procedures)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective assistance standard)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (failure to file suppression motion assessed under Strickland)