State v. Willoughby, 2021 Ohio 2611

On May 4, 2019, Deputy Harger stopped a vehicle for traffic violations; occupants (driver, front‑seat passenger Willoughby, rear passenger) appeared very nervous.
Harger removed occupants, placed rear passenger on a warrant into custody, removed the driver for suspected impairment, and told the driver he would deploy a K‑9 for an exterior narcotics sniff.
Harger performed a pat‑down of Willoughby (explained as routine/officer safety) and felt a bulge in Willoughby’s groin; he recovered methamphetamine and suboxone from Willoughby’s person.
After the pat‑down, Harger deployed his K‑9, which alerted on the passenger side of the vehicle where Willoughby had been seated; a subsequent vehicle search produced marijuana and paraphernalia.
Willoughby moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion, he pleaded no contest to aggravated trafficking and aggravated possession, reserved his suppression appeal, received a mandatory 4‑year term plus 2 years under Reagan Tokes, and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was the warrantless pat‑down of Willoughby lawful under Terry?	State: pat‑down was for officer safety given nervous occupants, outstanding warrant for rear passenger, and other facts.	Willoughby: officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous; pat‑down was routine SOP, not Terry‑justified.	Court: pat‑down itself did not meet Terry standards (not sufficiently justified).
2. If the pat‑down was unlawful, must evidence still be suppressed or is admission allowed under inevitable‑discovery?	State: K‑9 was on scene, would have sniffed the vehicle lawfully, the dog alerted where Willoughby sat, so his drugs would have been inevitably discovered.	Willoughby: no proof the dog would detect drugs hidden on his person after exit; dog alerted to marijuana in car, not to meth/suboxone found on him.	Court: inevitable‑discovery applies; dog sniff and subsequent search would have provided lawful cause, so evidence admissible.
3. Was Willoughby’s no‑contest plea knowing, voluntary, and intelligent under Crim.R. 11?	State: plea colloquy and signed forms substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and preserved suppression appeal; no prejudice shown.	Willoughby: plea colloquy failed to explain the effect of a no‑contest plea (R.C. 2937.07), so plea may not have been knowing.	Court: plea substantially complied with Crim.R. 11; Willoughby understood consequences; plea upheld.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry frisk standard: officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion that person is armed and dangerous)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable‑discovery doctrine permitting admission if evidence would have been lawfully discovered)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff of vehicle during lawful stop is not a search under the Fourth Amendment)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (cannot unreasonably prolong a stop to conduct a dog sniff)
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (dog alert can establish probable cause to search)
State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio adoption of inevitable‑discovery rule)
State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74 (permissible pre‑cruiser pat‑down when placing driver in cruiser is necessary for safety)
State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (officer’s smell of marijuana can supply probable cause to search)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Crim.R. 11 substantial‑compliance and prejudice analysis)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (presence in a vehicle does not alone give probable cause to search person)