State v. Whitlatch, 2017 Ohio 806

On April 14, 2016, Alliance police responded to Wal‑Mart where Leslie Whitlatch was detained for shoplifting; she repeatedly denied driving to the store.
Wal‑Mart security video showed Whitlatch driving a white van into the parking lot and parking before entering the store.
Officer McCord located the van, saw a receipt with Whitlatch’s name, verified she had an outstanding warrant and that her license was suspended.
Wal‑Mart asked the police to remove the van; under the city ordinance and department policy the officer impounded the vehicle.
While opening the van pursuant to the inventory/impound procedure, the officer smelled chemicals associated with methamphetamine manufacture and found one‑pot meth lab materials.
Whitlatch moved to suppress the items seized from the van; the trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the vehicle lawfully impounded?	Vehicle could be impounded because Whitlatch drove with a suspended license and ordinance authorizes removal.	Whitlatch disputed that suspension/impound justification was properly relied on.	Yes. Video showed she drove the van and ordinance authorized impoundment.
Was the subsequent search permissible as an inventory search?	Search was an inventory of a lawfully impounded vehicle under department policy and city ordinance.	Whitlatch argued police lacked authority to search a vehicle she had been removed from after a shoplifting arrest.	Yes. Inventory search doctrine applied because impoundment was lawful.
Did officers conduct inventory in good faith and consistent with standardized procedures?	Police followed department impoundment and inventory procedure when opening vehicle and locating contraband.	Whitlatch implied procedure/justification was insufficient or pretextual.	Court accepted trial court’s factual findings and found search reasonable under Fourth Amendment.
Should evidence discovered during inventory be suppressed?	Evidence from the inventory search is admissible.	Evidence should be suppressed because search was not authorized or standardized for closed containers.	Evidence admissible; suppression denied and conviction-related charges could proceed.

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (mixed question review of suppression rulings)
State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308 (trial court credited for factual findings on suppression)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (trial court as factfinder on suppression)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (deference to reasonable inferences)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (de novo review of legal application in Fourth Amendment claims)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory search rationale)
State v. Hathman, 65 Ohio St.3d 403 (requirement of standardized procedures for opening closed containers during inventory)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory search standards)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (policies required for opening closed containers)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (reasonableness standard for vehicle impoundment)