State v. Upchurch, 2021 Ohio 2143

On May 25, 2019, Toledo detectives working a targeted "stop program" at an apartment complex smelled burnt marijuana in a sparsely populated parking lot; they approached a vehicle occupied by Brandon Upchurch and a passenger.
As officers neared, the occupants quickly rolled up windows, exited the car, and tried to walk away; officers stopped them and observed an open container in the vehicle.
A warrant check revealed an outstanding warrant for Upchurch; he was arrested and cited for the open container.
The vehicle, parked on government property and neither occupant being a resident, was secured, towed, and subjected to entry with a lock-out kit; an inventory search revealed three loaded handguns, alcohol, and marijuana.
Upchurch moved to suppress the firearm evidence as the product of an unlawful search and seizure; the trial court denied the motion, he pleaded no contest, received two years community control, and appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Upchurch's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion / lawful basis to approach and briefly detain Upchurch (Terry stop)	Smell of marijuana (strong near vehicle), occupants’ rapid locking/exiting, and observed open container justified a consensual encounter evolving into an investigative stop and warrant check	Officer was not proven qualified to detect marijuana odor; thus odor testimony cannot establish reasonable suspicion	Qualification challenge was waived on appeal; even on the merits, the encounter was lawful—odor, conduct, and open container supplied reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain and run warrants
Whether the search of the vehicle was lawful (inventory/impound vs. unconstitutional search incident to arrest)	Vehicle was lawfully impounded (parked on government property, occupants not residents); officers followed department policy and performed an inventory search in good faith	Search was an unconstitutional warrantless search (or at least not justified as inventory)	Inventory search was lawful: performed in good faith after lawful arrests and in accordance with policy; inventory exception to warrant requirement applies

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings: mixed questions of law and fact)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992) (trial court as factfinder on suppression issues)
State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 661 N.E.2d 1030 (1996) (deference to trial court factual findings in suppression rulings)
State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St.3d 105, 717 N.E.2d 329 (1999) (inventory searches are a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory searches evaluated under Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches as administrative caretaking functions; good-faith procedures govern validity)