2016 Ohio 8370
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Oct. 29, 2015, Zeigler was a passenger in a car that ran off the road and struck a tree; the driver was transported away and the vehicle was towed.
- Trooper Winans assumed custody of the disabled vehicle and began an administrative inventory prior to towing.
- Zeigler asked a firefighter to retrieve his backpack from the vehicle; Trooper Winans decided the backpack would not be returned until its contents were inventoried.
- The trooper opened the backpack and a sunglass case and discovered a firearm, pills, fireworks, and loose marijuana; the backpack and sunglasses were then given to Zeigler’s girlfriend.
- Zeigler moved to suppress; the trial court granted the motion. The State appealed, arguing the trial court applied incorrect law. The appellate court affirmed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search of a passenger’s backpack during a vehicle inventory was lawful | Inventory policy authorized opening closed containers during an inventory of an impounded vehicle | Zeigler argued he retained control of the backpack and it was not subject to inventory; no standardized basis justified opening it | Search unlawful: backpack was not part of inventory because owner/agent (Zeigler) could assume control and trooper conceded item was not going with the vehicle |
| Whether standardized policy allowed opening closed containers during inventory | State invoked OSP policy permitting inventory and opening closed containers when vehicle is in custody | Zeigler argued OSP policy applies only when owner/agent cannot assume control and standardized policy must govern opening containers; here owner could retrieve item | Although OSP policy generally authorizes opening closed containers, policy applies only where owner/agent cannot assume control; trooper’s conduct inconsistent with that requirement, so opening was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (passengers have reduced expectation of privacy; police with probable cause to search a car may inspect passengers’ belongings capable of concealing the object of the search)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches are administrative caretaking functions and judged by Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (closed containers found during inventory may be opened only pursuant to standardized policy)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory-search policy must have standards guiding opening of closed containers)
- State v. Hathman, 65 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio requires a standardized policy specifically governing opening closed containers during vehicle inventories)