State v. Vang
2019 Ohio 195
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Vang was driving eastbound on I-70 when an Ohio State Highway Patrol sergeant observed brief turn-signal lane changes and paced Vang, estimating Vang at 74 mph in a 70 mph zone.
- The sergeant testified Vang made an unsafe lane change leaving ~1–1.5 car lengths in front of another vehicle. The sergeant initiated a traffic stop.
- During the stop the sergeant smelled raw marijuana and fabric softener coming from Vang’s vehicle, requested backup, had Vang exit and patted him down, and placed him in the cruiser.
- The sergeant found a package behind the driver’s seat; Vang admitted it contained marijuana. The sergeant then searched the trunk and discovered additional packages of marijuana.
- Vang moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop and trunk search violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion; Vang pled no contest and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop (reasonable suspicion/probable cause) | Vang: stop lacked reasonable suspicion; lane changes and pacing did not justify stop. | State: sergeant observed speeding (74 mph) and an unsafe lane change; video corroborated testimony. | Court: stop valid — sergeant observed two traffic violations (speeding and unsafe lane change). |
| Lawfulness of trunk search (probable cause under automobile exception) | Vang: trunk search lacked probable cause; odor alone (or other facts) insufficient. | State: officer smelled raw marijuana and fabric softener, found one packaged marijuana in the cabin, and Vang admitted its contents — providing probable cause to search trunk. | Court: trunk search lawful — odor of raw marijuana, masking agent, discovery of packaged marijuana in cabin, and admission justified probable cause to search trunk. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1985) (Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio 1997) (continued detention after a traffic stop is lawful if based on articulable suspicion of additional illegal activity)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2000) (recognizes automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (Ohio 2006) (odor of burnt marijuana in passenger compartment alone does not establish probable cause to search trunk)
- Bowling Green v. Godwin, 110 Ohio St.3d 58 (Ohio 2006) (probable cause depends on facts known to officer at time of search)