Wauseon v. Leveck, 2014 Ohio 3360

Wauseon v. Leveck, 2014-Ohio-3360; appellant Justin Leveck convicted Dec 11, 2013 of permitting underage consumption.
City of Wauseon filed a July 12, 2013 complaint alleging that on July 5, 2013 Leveck allowed an underage person to remain in his residence while possessing or consuming alcohol.
Appellant moved to suppress; trial court denied; he pled no contest; convicted and sentenced.
Officer Courtney responded to a July 5 noise complaint at 1170 North Street, observed loud music and people, knocked repeatedly, and was admitted by Mikeal Leveck; beer cans were visible and a juvenile-looking female appeared to be fleeing toward a back area.
Officer Courtney believed the female under 18 and suspected hiding evidence; he cited past drug history involving Mikeal to justify exigent circumstances; no warrant was obtained.
The court held no exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry, suppressed the evidence, reversed the conviction, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.	State relied on probable cause to believe underage drinking and potential drug evidence.	Leveck argues no exigent circumstances; misdemeanor exception to exigent basis; no consent or warrant.	No exigent circumstances; warrantless entry unreasonable; suppression proper.

State v. Bowe, 52 Ohio App.3d 112 (6th Dist. 1988) (identifies six exigent circumstances for home entries)
State v. Cal, 2004-Ohio-1329 (6th Dist. Ott. No. OT-03-025) (burden on government to show exigent circumstances)
State v. Scott M., 135 Ohio App.3d 253 (6th Dist. 1999) (exigent circumstances analysis for home entries)
State v. Christian, 2004-Ohio-3000 (6th Dist. Fulton No. F-04-003) (juvenile running away does not by itself show probable cause for underage drinking)
State v. Miller, 2011-Ohio-1545 (6th Dist. Wood No. WD-10-027) (exigent circumstances not applicable to misdemeanor offenses)