State v. Withrow, 2022 Ohio 2850

Officers used an untested confidential informant to arrange a controlled methamphetamine buy; Appellant (Withrow) drove to Carroll County as a passenger and was stopped for a burned-out headlight.
Deputies smelled marijuana in the vehicle; the driver admitted to having a marijuana "bowl," and officers ordered both occupants out of the car.
Deputy Campbell asked a compound question of Withrow about items in his pockets; Withrow admitted to having marijuana before receiving Miranda warnings.
After escorting and handcuffing Withrow, deputies conducted a search: they found a meth pipe, a cloth satchel (searched without a warrant) containing multiple baggies of a white powder later identified as meth, and cash; Miranda warnings were given only after these discoveries.
Trial court denied suppression; Withrow pleaded no contest to aggravated possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced under Reagan Tokes; on appeal the Seventh District reversed, holding pre‑Miranda questioning and the subsequent searches violated constitutional protections and vacated the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Withrow)	Held
Whether deputies' pre‑Miranda questions fit the public‑safety exception	Questions were limited and aimed at officer safety, so exception applies	Questions were compound and designed to elicit incriminating responses, not narrowly tailored to safety	Held: public‑safety exception did not apply; questioning violated Miranda
Whether Withrow was in custody for Miranda purposes when questioned	Initial traffic stop not custody; questioning occurred during detention not requiring warnings	Totality (threats, orders, multiple officers, handcuffs, repeated questioning) made the situation custodial	Held: a reasonable person would have felt in custody; Miranda required earlier
Whether search of person and satchel was lawful as search incident to arrest	Withrow’s admissions (pre‑Miranda) supplied probable cause to search incident to arrest	Admissions were product of Miranda violation; deputies did not have prior probable cause and did not obtain a warrant for the satchel	Held: searches relied on tainted admissions; satchel search without warrant or valid exception was unlawful; evidence suppressed
Constitutionality of Reagan Tokes Act sentencing	State defends the statute (not addressed below)	Withrow challenged Reagan Tokes as unconstitutional	Held: Moot—court reversed conviction and vacated sentence, so sentencing challenge not decided on merits

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) (public‑safety exception to Miranda)
State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (2014) (adopts a two‑part test for reasonable fear of access to weapons; refines public‑safety inquiry)
United States v. Kellogg, 306 Fed.Appx. 916 (6th Cir.) (federal formulation applied in Maxwell)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (limits of protective patdown searches)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain‑feel doctrine and limits on manipulating objects during patdown)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (defining interrogation to include words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (odor of marijuana by qualified officer can establish probable cause to search a vehicle)
State v. Banks‑Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 (2018) (a purse/satchel requires a warrant or applicable exception to search)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (traffic‑stop detainees not automatically in Miranda custody)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)