In February 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction in State v. Smith, leaving unresolved a potential limitation on vehicle searches during roadside traffic stops.
An Unfortunate Turn of Events and A ‘Loss’ at the Lower Court
In May 2021, police in Grove City, Ohio stopped Raetta Smith after observing her vehicle strike a curb and operate with a defective brake light. Officers initiated the traffic stop and directed the two occupants and their dogs to exit the vehicle. They deemed Smith’s car inoperable and ordered it be impounded.
The officers allowed the occupants to retrieve their belongings and step onto the side of the road. At this point, the officer told the Defendant that he would “give her a citation for these things and then she can be on her way.” Presumed free to go, the occupants waited for a ride.
Then, prior to impounding and towing the vehicle, the officers searched the car. An inventory search is a well-known exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, allowing law enforcement to search a vehicle in order to document the contents of an impounded car. These searches are routine and administrative; they are not conducted for the purpose of a criminal investigation.
During the search, they discovered drug paraphernalia and a firearm. Ms. Smith was charged with two counts of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle.
On her behalf, defense counsel with the Franklin County Public Defender’s Office filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence obtained during the inventory search. The Motion asserted:
It is clear from the beginning of the stop, this was going to result in nothing more than a citation. The officer told Defendant that she could call a licensed driver to pick the car up. He let her and her passenger remain at the side of the road during the stop. They allowed Defendant to retrieve items from her vehicle. Once the other officer appeared, the discussion turned to impounding the vehicle so they could do an inventory search. . . . The State might argue that this was a search incident to arrest. However, if she was arrested because of the paraphernalia found during the improper inventory search, it follows that the items found in the bags should also be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
A Look at the Defendant’s Appeal
The Defendant’s Motion was denied by the Franklin County Common Pleas, and on October 9, 2023, the Defendant pleaded no contest to her charges. On appeal, the Defendant had one central argument, echoing the original Motion to Suppress filed a year prior:
Appellant’s right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure under the United States and Ohio Constitutions was violated when the trial court denied Defendant-Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence where the testimony was clear that the evidence obtained during an inventory search was in a closed container and there was no departmental policy regarding the opening of closed containers.
On October 21, 2025, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed Smith’s convictions, holding that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
The court determined that the officer’s search was initiated after he informed the Defendant she was free to go. This statement ceased the traffic stop and, coupled with the lack of intent to arrest or charge the Defendant, the statement undermined the State’s argument that the search was justified as incident to arrest. As a result, the court found that the evidence recovered within the vehicle, drug paraphernalia and the firearm was discovered through “the exploitation of the illegality.”
The court concluded:
“Because the discovery of the drug paraphernalia was the result of [the officer] improperly opening the closed container, all evidence obtained as a result of the search must be suppressed.”
A Question Left Unanswered
The State filed its Notice of Appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on December 5, 2025. The Supreme Court denied jurisdiction on February 17, 2025. With the Court’s denial, the potential expansion of rights afforded to individuals and a potential limitation on searches incident to an arrest is up in the air in the State.
Ohio Court Watch saw a similar scenario last year in State v. Ballein and State v. Lansing, but the Fourth Circuit concluded the opposite of what was decided here. In that case, officers conducted a traffic stop and, after seemingly rendering the occupants free to go, searched the car, finding contraband. Though the evidence was suppressed at the trial level, the appellate court reversed, and on the Defendants’ appeal, the Court declined review.
Especially juxtaposed with State v. Smith, it is clear that the scope of the Fourth Amendment is muddied. If an officer indicates that a person is free to go, is a subsequent search and seizure unconstitutional?
In Smith, Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice Hawkins dissented, clearly interested in analyzing the extent of law enforcement’s the right to search vehicles. With apparently conflicting applications of the Fourth Amendment in at least two circuit courts, the issue will likely return to Ohio’s highest court in the near future.