Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court considers whether a motorist was unlawfully detained, whether he was in custody for Miranda purposes, and whether statements obtained through sequential unwarned and warned questioning were admissible. The court holds that the motorist was in custody, that the post-Miranda statements were inadmissible under the Ohio Constitution, and that physical evidence obtained directly from the unwarned statements was also inadmissible under Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. The court also addresses the scope of probable cause to search the vehicle based on the odor of burnt marijuana.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Farris was unlawfully detained after the traffic stop.
- Whether Farris was in custody for Miranda purposes when questioned in the police cruiser.
- Whether statements obtained after Miranda warnings, following nearly identical unwarned custodial questioning, were admissible.
- Whether physical evidence discovered as a result of the unwarned statements was admissible under the Fifth Amendment and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
- Whether the odor of burnt marijuana alone supplied probable cause to search the vehicle's trunk under the automobile exception.
Holdings
- Farris was not unreasonably detained because the trooper's detection of the odor of burnt marijuana supplied an articulable basis and probable cause supporting further detention to search the vehicle.
- Farris was in custody when questioned in the police cruiser.
- Farris's post-Miranda statements were inadmissible because the unwarned and warned questioning constituted a single interrogation and the warning did not provide an informed choice about whether to continue speaking.
- The physical evidence obtained as the direct result of Farris's unwarned custodial statements was inadmissible under Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
- The odor of burnt marijuana from the passenger compartment, standing alone, did not establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle's trunk.
Key quotations
“Temporally and substantively, Menges’s questioning of Farris constituted a single interrogation.” (at 526)
“Only evidence obtained as the direct result of statements made in custody without the benefit of a Miranda warning should be excluded.” (at 529)
“The odor of burnt marijuana in the passenger compartment of a vehicle does not, standing alone, establish probable cause for a warrantless search of the trunk of the vehicle.” (at 530)
Factual background
An Ohio Highway Patrol trooper stopped Stephen F. Farris for speeding and smelled a light odor of burnt marijuana from the vehicle. The trooper removed Farris from the car, patted him down, took his keys, placed him in the cruiser, and questioned him without Miranda warnings; Farris admitted that a marijuana pipe was in a bag in the trunk. The trooper then administered Miranda warnings without explaining that the earlier admissions could not be used, repeated the questions, and obtained the same answers before searching the trunk and finding drug paraphernalia.
Procedural history
Farris was charged with misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court suppressed his pre-Miranda statements but admitted his post-Miranda statements and the pipe and cigarette papers seized from the trunk based on probable cause arising from the odor of burnt marijuana. After Farris pleaded no contest and was convicted, the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed.