OH9: Incomplete inventory showed it was pretext for investigative search

The Ohio Highway Patrol policy required that inventories be complete and not stop just because something incriminating was found. Here, the officer did just that, and it showed that the inventory was a pretext for a criminal investigative search. The passenger’s duffle bag wasn’t even listed on the inventory. In addition, the stop for speeding was unsupportable with any real evidence. State v. Harper, 2014-Ohio-347, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 346 (9th Dist. February 3, 2014):

[*P24] In the present matter, Trooper Ausse testified that the purpose of an inventory was to take an accounting of everything in the vehicle, including something as insignificant as a pack of cigarettes, in order to create a record for the protection of all parties. However, in spite of this testimony, he testified that he did not include Ms. Harper’s black duffel bag or any its contents on the HP-25D Form because it was not pertinent to the case and did not contain any contraband. Further, it appears from the record that, once the cocaine was discovered, the officers did not bother looking inside the black duffel bag and simply took Ms. Harper’s word that it contained clothing and toiletries. Trooper Ausse’s testimony regarding the handling of the black duffel bag is wholly inconsistent with the Ohio State Highway Patrol’s administrative inventory policy which explicitly states that “[o]nce an inventory has been initiated, the officer must complete the inventory and should not stop after finding contraband or other incriminating materials.” Additionally, shortly before the stop, Trooper Ausse received a tip to be on the lookout for a “black small four-door car traveling northbound,” and that “Isha Harper, might be passing through Medina County and involved in drug-related activity.”

[*P25] For the reasons stated above, we adopt the Eighth District’s reasoning in Woods and, in doing so, conclude that (1) Trooper Ausse lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Ms. Harper’s vehicle for following too closely in violation of R.C. 4511.34, (2) the officers failed to conduct a proper inventory of Ms. Harper’s vehicle pursuant to standard operating procedures of the Ohio State Highway Patrol, and (3) the inventory of the vehicle prior to towing was disingenuous and pretext for a warrantless search. Therefore, the stop, search, and seizure of Ms. Harper’s vehicle were unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution. See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372.