Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the single-purpose-container exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement did not authorize police to search a closed bookbag found in a home during an arrest. Because the bookbag was not a container whose contents were apparent from its distinctive characteristics and no exigent circumstances existed, the officers were required to obtain a warrant. The court reversed the appellate judgment, vacated the conviction, and remanded with instructions to suppress the evidence.
Holdings
- A warrantless search of a closed container ordinarily violates the Fourth Amendment unless a specific exception to the warrant requirement applies; probable cause alone does not justify opening the container absent exigent circumstances.
- The single-purpose-container exception applies only when a container's distinctive configuration, transparency, or other characteristics make its illegal contents readily apparent, effectively placing those contents in plain view. A common bookbag is not a single-purpose drug container, and the visible portion of an empty baggie did not make its contents obvious.
Questions Presented
- Whether the warrantless search of a closed bookbag inside a home was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the single-purpose-container exception to the warrant requirement applied because part of a plastic baggie was visible in the bookbag's zipper.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (12)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 382, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014)(followed)
- Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948)(followed)
- Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 755, 764 n.13, 766, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979)(abrogated_on_other_grounds)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991)(abrogated)
- Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 427-429, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981)(followed)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982)(abrogating)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133, 136-137, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)(followed)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701-702, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983)(followed)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 747, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment)(followed)
- United States v. Gust, 405 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…