State v. Zerucha, 2016 Ohio 1300

Officers executed an arrest warrant for Ashley Zerucha at an apartment building where a closed-circuit camera and a female voice suggested Zerucha might be inside. A male occupant (Cory Felasco) answered and said Zerucha had left, then admitted he impersonated the female voice.
Officers entered the west apartment believing Zerucha could be present to effectuate the arrest; they searched common areas and the bedroom.
In the bedroom, Deputy Johns observed a meth pipe on the bed and an open duffel overflowing with items (coffee filters, funnels, tubing, chemicals) used in meth manufacture.
Detective Rose photographed and collected additional items (pop bottle with liquid residue, light bulb, small bags, salt); testing showed methamphetamine residue in a bag and in the bottle liquid.
Zerucha was indicted on multiple drug and related counts, moved to suppress the evidence seized, was convicted (acquitted on one count), and sentenced to seven years after merger and election by the state.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of warrantless entry to effectuate arrest	Officers had a valid arrest warrant and reason to believe Zerucha was inside, permitting entry	Zerucha argued the entry and subsequent search lacked consent and a warrant for the search	Entry valid under Payton because officers reasonably believed suspect was present; entry upheld
Admissibility of evidence observed/seized in apartment (plain view)	Items were in plain view during a lawful entry and thus seizable	Zerucha argued seizure violated Fourth Amendment because there was no search warrant or consent	Evidence admissible under plain-view doctrine: officers lawfully present, had access, incriminating character immediately apparent
Application of statutory exigent-circumstances (R.C. 2933.33)	State: meth lab risk creates exigent circumstances to search without warrant	Court: no probable cause of active meth manufacture until items were in plain view; statute not an independent basis here	Court declined to rely on R.C. 2933.33 as separate justification
Alleged trial-court prejudice / ineffective assistance for not objecting to judge’s remarks about defendant’s absence	Zerucha: judge’s comments and counsel’s failure to object/move for mistrial prejudiced trial	State: remarks were not derogatory, judge gave limiting instruction; counsel’s conduct reasonable	Remarks not prejudicial; counsel not ineffective under Strickland; no mistrial warranted

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (establishes that an arrest warrant implicitly authorizes entry into a residence when officers reasonably believe the suspect is inside)
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (plain-view seizure permissible when officer lawfully in position to view evidence)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (limitations on extending a justified intrusion to seize additional evidence; plain-view context)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain-view seizure requires lawful presence, right of access, and immediately apparent incriminating nature)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
United States v. Pruitt, 458 F.3d 477 (reasonableness of belief a suspect is inside assessed by totality of circumstances)
United States v. McKinney, 379 F.2d 259 (factors for reasonable belief regarding a suspect's presence in a residence)
State v. Williams, 55 Ohio St.2d 82 (Ohio application of plain-view principles)
State v. Seiber, 56 Ohio St.3d 4 (prejudice standard under ineffective assistance review)
State v. Franklin, 62 Ohio St.3d 118 (mistrial standard: declared only when fairness cannot be preserved)