OH7: The SW included def’s car, and her driving off before police could search it didn’t prevent stopping and searching it away from the house

The search warrant for defendant’s house included her car. When he arrived there, the police attempted to stop her to search the car, but she got away and was stopped about a mile away. Because the warrant provided for the car, the search was valid despite Bailey because Bailey just mentioned the premises and not the car, too. State v. Prado, 2017-Ohio-527, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 514 (7th Dist. Feb. 9, 2017):

[*P17] In the absence of caselaw to the contrary, and based on a logical reading of the language used in the warrant, we hold that the search warrant in this case authorized the search of Appellant’s vehicle. The record clearly establishes that Det. Dado intended to search Appellant’s vehicle. He specifically waited until Appellant arrived in her car before calling in the search team, which in effect initiated the execution of the search warrant. At that time, there is no question that the vehicle was present on the premises. However, the car, which is obviously mobile, was driven off before the execution team could arrive at the house. The police, acting as quickly as possible, pulled the car over a short distance from the premises. While we recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this rationale in Bailey, the issue in that case was whether an individual could be detained away from the premises to be searched and did not address search of a vehicle. The issue in this case is whether language allowing the search of a vehicle “present” at the premises allows police to pull a vehicle over a short distance after it leaves the premises while watching the vehicle at all times. Bailey’s holding and rationale do not apply in this matter. The knowledge that when the search was instituted the vehicle was present, and that it was moved only a negligible distance away, does control. For purposes of the search allowed by the warrant, there is no logical difference between searching the vehicle in the driveway of Appellant’s residence and searching it a negligible distance away especially since the car and driver were under surveillance the entire time.