State v. Wintermeyer (Slip Opinion), 145 N.E.3d 278

Columbus officer observed Justin Wintermeyer enter a residence briefly then hand a very small plastic bag to Korey Carlson in an alley; officer seized the bag from Carlson and field testing indicated drugs.
Wintermeyer moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain him.
At the suppression hearing the prosecutor litigated only the reasonable-suspicion issue and did not contest Wintermeyer’s Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the seizure.
The trial court granted the motion to suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion; the state appealed and for the first time argued Wintermeyer lacked Fourth Amendment standing.
The Tenth District held the state could not raise standing for the first time on appeal and affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the state forfeited the standing argument by not raising it in the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May the State raise lack of Fourth Amendment standing for the first time on appeal when it did not contest standing in the trial court?	State: Yes — defendant bears burden to prove standing, so State can argue failure of proof on appeal.	Wintermeyer: No — State waived/forfeited the issue by not raising it below; cannot surprise on appeal.	No. The State may not assert a standing challenge on its own appeal if it failed to raise the issue in the trial court.
Does a defendant have to present evidence of Fourth Amendment standing when the government does not dispute it at the suppression hearing?	State: Defendant must prove standing regardless.	Wintermeyer: Not required absent a government challenge.	Defendant need not prove standing unless the government contests it; burden to dispute standing rests with the government.

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (explains who must establish Fourth Amendment interest to challenge a search)
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (government may lose right to raise standing if it fails to contest below)
Combs v. United States, 408 U.S. 224 (reversed where government failed to challenge standing at trial)
Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (defendant must allege and, if disputed, prove he was victim of the search)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (standard for investigatory stop/reasonable suspicion)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (Fourth Amendment waiver/forfeiture principles)
State v. Kessler, 53 Ohio St.2d 204 (state bears burden to justify warrantless searches)
State v. Morris, 42 Ohio St.2d 307 (prosecution that fails to contest standing in court below may be foreclosed on appeal)
State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496 (prosecution need not prove every aspect of a search when defendant narrows issues)
Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (defendant must state issues with particularity at suppression hearing)