State v. Workman
2015 Ohio 5049
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Workman was indicted on 79 counts for illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and one count of tampering with evidence; aggregate sentence 40 years.
- Motion to suppress challenged impoundment/inventory search of Workman’s van and a second SD card not covered by the warrant.
- Vehicle impounded in St. Marys; officers relied on RC 4513.61 and local ordinance; impoundment anticipated warrant and allowed inventory with photos.
- Second SD card found inside an adapter during an Oct. 2013 search; warrant described only iPhone and visible SD card; prejudice argued that the second card was outside warrant.
- Inevitable-discovery doctrine evidence allowed photos from the second SD card; officers testified the second card would have been discovered lawfully.
- Tampering with evidence conviction upheld: Workman discarded a hotel room keycard in a police trash bin during interrogation, with video evidence of the act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the vehicle impoundment and inventory search lawful? | Workman contends impoundment was not authorized and search was pretextual. | Workman argues community-caretaking/Blue Ash limits apply; warrantless search invalid. | Impoundment and inventory search were lawful; not a pretext. |
| Did the second SD card search violate the October 22, 2013 warrant? | Second SD card was not described in warrant; search unlawful. | Second SD card would have been inevitably discovered under lawful investigation. | Second SD card admissible under inevitable-discovery doctrine. |
| Is the tampering-with-evidence conviction supported by sufficient evidence? | State contends disposal of hotel-room keycard impaired availability of evidence. | Workman argues disposal was not concealment/intended to impair evidence; insufficient proof. | Tampering conviction affirmed; sufficient evidence of concealment/removal and intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Steinbrunner, 2012-Ohio-2358 (3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-11-27 (2012)) (Fourth Amendment suppression standard and warran t exceptions)
- Blue Ash v. Kavanagh, 113 Ohio St.3d 67 (2007-Ohio-1103) (impoundment authority and non-pretextual inventory searches)
- Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory searches of lawfully impounded vehicles under routine procedures)
- Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory procedures and legitimate search context)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant requirement for data on digital devices; context-specific exceptions apply)
- Perkins, 393 U.S. 433 (1985) (inevitable-discovery doctrine; admissibility of derivative evidence)
- State v. Straley, 2014-Ohio-2139 (139 Ohio St.3d 339) (knowledge standard for purposes of tampering statute; concealment/removal concepts)
- State v. Barker, 2012-Ohio-522 (11th Dist. Portage No. 2010-P-0044) (reasonable knowledge of ongoing investigation standard)