[Cite as State v. Metz , 2021-Ohio-3060.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-20-008 Appellee Trial Court No. 19 CR 255

v. Joshua A. Metz DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: September 3, 2021

* * * * * Edward Stechschulte, for appellant.

* * * * * ZMUDA, P.J.

I. Introduction {¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal of the judgment of th e Williams County Court of Common Pleas, denying the motion to suppress of appellant, Joshua Metz. After appellant entered a no contest plea, the trial cou rt sentenced him to three2. years of community control and 180 days in jail, with all 180 d ays stayed, and imposed a $1,000 fine. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. II. Background and Procedural History {¶ 2} On August 20, 2019, the combined assets of the Williams County Sheriff’s Office, the Ohio Highway Patrol, the Village of Edon Police, an d the six-county MANUNIT drug task force responded to reports of a potential abd uction and hostage situation, identifying the alleged perpetrator as Anthony Arque tte. The search for the alleged victim and Arquette included several cell phone “pings, ” an IP location trace on the alleged victim’s computer, and alerts on several vehicles l inked to Arquette. Two of those vehicles, a blue suburban and silver minivan, were titled to appellant, but the investigation yielded information that appellant had loaned the suburban to Arquette. {¶ 3} Police eventually narrowed their search to the area north of Pu laski, and after several hours, Williams County Sheriff Deputy Doug Moser spotted the blue

suburban and the silver minivan at the Graziani residence in Pu laski. Deputy Moser called for backup, and was instructed to remain on scene and pr event anyone from leaving. As he waited, he observed a man and a woman leave the house, enter a silver minivan, and begin exiting the driveway in the vehicle. Activa ting his lights, Deputy Moser blocked the minivan’s exit from the driveway, near the ro ad. {¶ 4} Williams County Sheriff Lieutenant Greg Ruskey responded to the scene soon after, along with numerous other law enforcement officers. Lieutenant Ruskey assisted Deputy Moser in detaining the man and woman, identifie d as appellant and his3. wife, Cindy. Lieutenant Ruskey and Deputy Moser secured the tw o in “investigative detention,” and advised them they were not free to go. Deputy Moser removed objects from appellant’s pockets and placed him in the back of his crui ser, in handcuffs. The deputies questioned appellant and his wife, separately, trying to locate the alleged abduction victim. They learned that the alleged victim and her boyfriend, Arquette, were inside the house. Brian Graziani exited the house during this questioning, and he, too,

was detained. {¶ 5} For the next 15-30 minutes, appellant, Cindy, and Graziani rema ined in “investigative detention” at the scene while the gathered law e nforcement engaged in negotiations to remove the targets of their manhunt from the ho me. Eventually, it became clear that no abduction had occurred, but Arquette had a ctive warrants. Deputy Moser was assigned to take Arquette into custody and transport him to the jail. Deputy Moser then removed appellant from the back of his cruiser, remo ved appellant’s handcuffs, returned all items taken from appellant’s pockets bu t mistakenly kept his identification, and told appellant he was free to go. Cindy wa s released, as well. {¶ 6} Appellant and Cindy returned to their minivan and waited for th e exit to clear. As soon as Deputy Moser drove off, clearing the way to the road, Graziani’s mother arrived and pulled in right behind appellant’s vehicle. Law enforcement vehicles were parked on either side of appellant, and he did not feel he could ask Mrs. Graziani to move or ask permission to drive through the grass to reach the road. Appellant remained4. at the scene, seated in the driver’s seat of his minivan while Cindy sat in the shade of a nearby tree. {¶ 7} At this point, while appellant was free to go but blocked by ve hicles, the

focus of law enforcement turned to the Graziani’s home. In the course of negotiating Arquette’s surrender, Lieutenant Ruskey and others smelled the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the house. He requested consent to search the h ome, but the Grazianis declined at first, consenting only after learning a warrant wou ld be obtained. Lieutenant Ruskey also learned that appellant wished to leave, but had bee n asked for consent to search his minivan first, to “make sure nothing illegal from th e house was leaving the property.” Appellant gave consent and signed a consent to sear ch card, but deputies did

not search his vehicle. {¶ 8} Instead, just after appellant signed the consent card in prepar ation for leaving, Williams County Sheriff Deputy Michelle Jacob arrived. 1 Deputy Jacob observed appellant, sitting in his car with the door open. As she approached, she noticed appellant reach toward his waistband or pocket area, and it cau sed her concern for officer safety. Deputy Jacob asked appellant to step out of the miniva n, voicing her safety concerns. When appellant complied, Deputy Jacob saw the top of a Ziploc bag sticking out of the same pocket to which appellant had been reaching. D eputy Jacob pulled the

1 Deputy Jacob had been on scene earlier for a brief time, but l eft to obtain a search warrant for the house. After she was just a few miles away, th e Grazianis consented to a search of their home, and Deputy Jacob was called back to the s cene.5. Ziploc the rest of the way out and observed “dirty looking meth ,” later tested and confirmed as methamphetamine. {¶ 9} Appellant was charged with aggravated possession of drugs in vi olation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a). He was arraigned on January 13, 2020, and entered a plea of not guilty. On February 4, 2020, appellant moved to su ppress the evidence, seized from his pocket without a warrant. On March 11, 2020, t he trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. Deputy Moser, Lieutenant Ru skey, Deputy Jacob, appellant, and Cindy each testified regarding the events of Aug ust 20, 2019. {¶ 10} Deputy Moser recounted the events regarding his arrival on scen e, detention of appellant, Cindy, and Brian Graziani with Lieutena nt Ruskey’s assistance, and eventual exit with Arquette in custody. He also indicated he returned some tattoo tools, taken from appellant’s pocket, and told appellant he was free to go. Deputy Moser forgot to return appellant’s identification, and did not return a folding knife, stuck in the ground near another deputy for safekeeping. {¶ 11} Lieutenant Ruskey testified that he assisted in detaining appel lant, his wife, and Graziani, and after smelling marijuana emanating from the h ouse, requested Deputy Jacob come to the scene to assist investigating possible narcot ics use. When questioned regarding his request to search appellant’s vehicle, Lieutenant Ruskey testified as

follows: Q: Do you remember the exact words you used or a general colloquy?6. A: Yeah, normally we just say while we’re here, you know suspected drug use going on inside the residence, before you gu ys leave we’d like to take a look through your vehicle, make sure there isn’t anything illegal inside the vehicle. Q: At that time, would the Metz’s have been handcuffed? A: I don’t believe they were handcuffed. Q: Had you returned their property to them? A: I don’t recall having any of their property. He had a knife that was stuck in the ground just for safekeeping by Deputy Mos er but I don’t recall, I personally don’t recall taking any of their pro perty. Lieutenant Ruskey testified that appellant gave consent to sear ch his vehicle prior to the Grazianis giving consent to search their house. {¶ 12} Deputy Jacob testified that she arrived on scene after Deputy M oser took Arquette away. She indicated she is the narcotics officer, and was responsible for obtaining a search warrant for the home that day. She never as ked to search appellant’s vehicle. Instead, as she arrived and walked toward Lieutenant Ruskey, who was her superior at the scene, she immediately noted appellant make a m ovement toward his waist or pocket, and told appellant, “You’re making me worry, c ould you step out of the vehicle?” Once appellant stepped out, Deputy Jacob recognized the Ziploc bag as common storage for drugs. She removed the bag, tested it, and advised appellant it was meth. Appellant admitted he had been trying to hide it and den ied it was his.7. {¶ 13} Appellant testified that he and Cindy went to the house to give Graziani a tattoo, and were just leaving when Deputy Moser blocked their v ehicle and detained them. He acknowledged that Deputy Moser eventually told him he was free to go, but his vehicle remained blocked for about 5-10 minutes while Deputy Mo ser secured Arquette for transport. As soon as Deputy Moser drove off, Graziani’s m other pulled in behind him, blocking him again. Mrs. Graziani and her son were then b usy speaking to the officers that wished to search the home. Cindy felt overheated in the minivan and exited the vehicle to sit in the shade of a nearby tree. Appellant, a lso, did not want to leave without his folding knife, which held sentimental value. At th is point, appellant testified, he was no longer trying to leave. {¶ 14} When Deputy Jacob arrived, appellant claimed she never spoke to him and there was no “making me nervous” talk. Instead, appellant test ified that Deputy Jacob “motioned with her finger” and directed him out of the minivan. She then pulled the bag from his pocket. {¶ 15} Cindy’s testimony was similar to appellant’s, with one notable exception. Cindy indicated that Deputy Jacob asked appellant “what’s that in your pocket,” a couple of times. In response, Cindy stated, appellant handed Deputy J acob what was in his pocket. {¶ 16} The trial court held the motion in abeyance, permitting the par ties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On May 27, 2 020, the trial court denied the motion by written decision.8. {¶ 17} The trial court determined appellant and his wife were no longe r in “investigative detention,” but were nevertheless unable to leav e as their car was blocked by law enforcement and non-law enforcement vehicles parked arou nd their minivan. The trial court also determined that Deputy Jacob encountered appel lant within the “first three

minutes of her arrival at the scene” and she was unaware that a ppellant had previously been detained by Deputy Moser. Noting Deputy Jacob’s extensive experience in law enforcement and her six years serving with the narcotics task f orce, the trial court determined Deputy Jacob alerted to appellant’s movement, ordere d appellant out of his vehicle for officer safety, and identified the Ziploc bag as a “common method of storing and transferring illegal drugs or narcotics.” Deputy Jacob’s a ccount of events, moreover, was corroborated by Cindy Metz, who testified the deputy asked appellant “what is that in your pocket?” {¶ 18} While the trial court determined the search of appellant’s pock et occurred during an investigatory detention, the court also acknowledged the “chaotic scene” that day, and judged Deputy Jacob’s conduct in light to the totality of the circumstances. At the time Deputy Jacob encountered appellant, sitting in his veh icle with the door open, law enforcement had investigated a potential hostage situation, searched for Arquette to arrest him on an outstanding warrant, and investigated the pres ence of illegal drugs at the house. The trial court deemed Deputy Jacob’s command to appell ant to exit his vehicle for officer safety appropriate, based on appellant’s “furtive m ovement,” and determined the Ziploc bag observed by Deputy Jacob was evidence in plain v iew.9. {¶ 19} After the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, appel lant changed his plea and entered a plea of no contest to the single count o f aggravated possession of drugs. The trial court sentenced appellant to three years of c ommunity control and 180 days in the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, with all 180 days stayed. The trial court also imposed a $1,000 fine. {¶ 20} Appellant filed a timely appeal of this judgment. III. Assignments of Error {¶ 21} Appellant now asserts a single assignment of error, with three issues for review, as follows: The Trial Court erred when it denied Appellant’s Motion to Suppress. IV. Analysis {¶ 22} Appellant argues that the evidence taken from his pocket should have been suppressed, raising arguments relative to the intrusion in remo ving him from his vehicle, the inadvertent discovery of contraband in “plain view,” and th e propriety of the field test of the evidence. In response, the appellee, the state of Ohio, filed no appellate brief. {¶ 23} Our review of a decision, denying a motion to suppress, “presen ts a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. In reviewing the ruling, we accept – as true – the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by credible evidence in the reco rd, and “independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial cou rt, whether the facts satisfy10. the applicable legal standard.” Burnside at ¶ 8, citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 711, 707 N.E.2d 539 (4th Dist.1997). {¶ 24} The Fourth Amendment protects an individual’s “subjective expec tation of privacy if that expectation is reasonable and justifiable.” (Ci tation omitted.) State v. Buzzard, 112 Ohio St.3d 451, 2007-Ohio-373, 860 N.E.2d 1006, ¶ 14. An i ndividual fails to preserve that privacy, however, by ‘leaving an object in the plain view of the public.” Id. at ¶ 15 , citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). {¶ 25} The “plain view” doctrine provides an exception to the warrant requirement, permitting seizure of “evidence, instrumentalities or fruits of a crime without the necessity of having first obtained a search warrant specifically naming such items.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Williams, 55 Ohio St.2d 82, 84, 377 N.E.2d 1013 (1978). The requirements for “plain view” are “(1) the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful; (2) the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent; and (3) the incriminating nature of the evidence w as immediately apparent to the seizing authorities.” Id at paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 26} Appellant raises issues that align with the requirements for se izure of evidence that is in “plain view.” He argues the illegality of the intrusion, pretext for the search, and the benign nature of the baggie prior to the deputy ’s intrusion within a

“closed container.” We address each issue in turn.11. Lawful Intrusion {¶ 27} In challenging the trial court’s decision, appellant first argu es that the investigatory detention lasted far beyond the time appropriate for a Terry stop, and therefore, the intrusion permitting plain view of the baggie wa s not lawful. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The Fourth A mendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Hairston, 156 Ohio St.3d 363, 2019-Ohio-1622, 126 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 9; see also Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 14. {¶ 28} An officer may perform a Terry stop if that officer has “a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal behavior has occurred or is

imminent.” Hairston at ¶ 9, citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30. The “reasonable-suspicion” standard requires less than the threshold for probable cause, w ith determination based on the totality of circumstances as viewed by the reasonable and p rudent police officer, observing the scene and reacting to unfolding events. Hairston at ¶ 10, citing United States v. Sokolov, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2ds 1 (1989); State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991). {¶ 29} As an initial matter, we note that the trial court determined t hat, “from the perspective of the [appellant], they couldn’t drive away” and t he “‘investigatory stop’ continued.” However, the record does not support this conclusi on. Appellant testified that, once Deputy Moser drove off, Mrs. Graziani blocked his egress and he chose not to ask her to move her car or drive through the grass to reach the road. Furthermore, he12. acknowledged that – by the time Deputy Jacob arrived – he was n o longer trying to leave. Therefore, we disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that t he “investigatory stop” continued after Deputy Moser left the scene. Because the trial court’s decision focused only on Deputy Jacob’s conduct, however, without regard for the initial detention by Deputy Moser, we find the trial court correctly applied the law in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. {¶ 30} Appellant first argues the duration of his non-consensual deten tion went beyond that which would have been permitted for an investigativ e stop pursuant to Terry

. However, his argument relies on a misstatement of the facts, as demonstrated by testimony at the suppression hearing. For example, while Deput y Moser did retain appellant’s identification and law enforcement vehicles were pa rked around appellant’s minivan, as argued by appellant, by the time Deputy Jacob arriv ed appellant had – by his own admission – abandoned his attempt to leave and consented to a search of his minivan. Furthermore, it appeared that appellant’s departure w as not imminent, as his wife was outside the vehicle, relaxing under a nearby tree. {¶ 31} The only detention, relevant in this case, arose from Deputy Ja cob’s contact with appellant. This was the only contact examined by the tria l court relative to the evidence seized in appellant’s case. Despite concluding there was a continuous detention, the trial court noted Deputy Jacob’s arrival to the “crazy” scene to investigate a suspected drug house, and her immediate officer safety concerns , unrelated to any initial detention. Specifically, the trial court noted that the scene began as a potential hostage13. crisis, pivoted to an arrest of Arquette on warrants, and ended with a drug investigation, targeting the Graziani house. The trial court determined that Deputy Jacob removed appellant from his vehicle after viewing suspicious movement ca using safety concerns, unrelated to any prior detention. {¶ 32} The trial court, in this case, properly analyzed Deputy Jacob’s conduct based on her observation of appellant’s furtive movement at the scene of a drug investigation. While appellant argues pretext, his wife corrob orated the deputy’s stated concern over what he had in his pocket. A brief stop for a lim ited, protective inquiry was reasonable in these circumstances. “When an officer is justifi ed in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at clo se range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appea r to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to det ermine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of ph ysical harm.” State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 180-181, 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988), quoting Terry , 392 U.S. at 24, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. {¶ 33} Recognizing the evolving circumstances that day, the trial cour t considered the propriety of Deputy Jacob’s reaction based solely on the ci rcumstances she observed at the scene of a drug investigation: a man, sitting in a miniv an, reaching for or making furtive movement toward his pocket. The ongoing detention, acc ordingly, was not part of the trial court’s analysis into reasonable suspicion as it rela ted to Deputy Jacob’s command to exit the vehicle. The circumstances observed by Dep uty Jacob, moreover,14. did justify a brief stop to ensure appellant was not armed or p osing any threat. Appellant’s argument regarding the lawfulness of the stop, acco rdingly, lacks merit. Inadvertent Discovery {¶ 34} Appellant next argues that the trial court misapplied the “plai n view” doctrine, challenging the motive of Deputy Jacob in ordering hi m from his vehicle and the inadvertent discovery of contraband in “plain view.” In co ntrast to the deputy’s testimony, appellant argues Deputy Jacob conducted a warrantles s search to discover evidence of a crime, an argument lacking any support in the rec ord. {¶ 35} This challenge relies on appellant’s disagreement with Deputy J acob’s testimony. However, the trial court was in the best position t o evaluate that testimony and consider the deputy’s credibility. The trial court was als o free to find that testimony more credible than appellant’s. State v. Brown, 100 Ohio St.3d 51, 2003-Ohio-5059, 796 N.E.2d 506, ¶ 15, citing State v. Mills , 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992), citing State v. Fanning , 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982); State v. Moore , 81 Ohio St.3d 22, 31, 689 N.E.2d 1 (1998). {¶ 36} Here, the record demonstrates that Deputy Jacob asked appellant to step from his vehicle based on her concerns for officer safety. Dep uty Jacob testified that she viewed and immediately recognized the incriminating nature of t he plastic baggie, protruding from appellant’s pocket, occurring at the scene of a n ongoing drug investigation. Specifically, she testified on direct:15. So I responded to the scene. * * * I walked over to Lieutenan t Ruskey which was standing beside [appellant’s] vehicle, I think it was a van. [Appellant] was seated in the driver’s seat. There was n obody in the passenger seat. The door was open. I approached Lieutenant Ru skey and asked him for an update, which is what’s going on? While I was speaking with Lieutenant Ruskey, I saw [appellant] make some motion towa rd his waistband, pocket area that made me very uncomfortable as far a s safety concerns. So I asked [appellant] if he would step out of the v ehicle because I felt uneasy. I think I said to him I don’t like the movement s you’re making. You’re making me worry, could you step out of the vehi cle? When he stepped out of the vehicle and actually stood up, I saw the top of a zip lock bag sticking out of the pocket that he was making the motion by. In my training and experience, I know that zip lock bags are a common way to store drugs. {¶ 37} On cross examination, Deputy Jacob reiterated her concern for o fficer safety, demonstrating the way appellant moved, stating, “And se e my weapons right there. That’s what I’m saying, when he’s doing this, he’s seat ed and he’s doing this.” Deputy Jacob also emphasized her training and experience in rec ognizing drugs, stating, “I was seeing drugs in plain view” based on the baggie protrudi ng from appellant’s pocket prior to removing it the rest of the way.16. {¶ 38} Appellant disputes Deputy Jacob’s testimony as credible, but th e trial court clearly disagreed. In denying the motion to suppress, the tria l court found the deputy’s account regarding her concern for safety and the immediately ap parent nature of the baggie as indicative of drugs, considering the circumstances ob served by her that day, to be credible. Other jurisdictions have reached the same conclus ion, and determined that trained officers might view a partially visible, plastic baggie as an immediately apparent indication of illegal drugs. See e.g. State v. Strothers, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18322, 2000 WL 1867594 (Dec.22, 2000) (officer entitled to seize and/o r search baggie sticking out of a sweat-jacket pocket, based on the immediately apparent , incriminating nature of the baggie at the scene of a drug investigation); State v. Barr, 86 Ohio App.3d 227, 234, 620 N.E.2d 242 (8th Dist.1993) (based on circumstances, police “possessed the required probable cause to associate the visible plastic bag with crimin al activity); State v. Brown, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-754, 2019-Ohio-3160, (baggie protr uding from closed hand, outside a known drug house, constituted evidence of drugs in plain view, providing probable cause for detention); State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-5088, 5 N.E.3d 670 (12th Dist.) (less than an inch of a clear plastic baggie protruding from defendant’s hand sufficient to support reasonable articulable suspicion of drug activity, justifying stop). {¶ 39} In disputing “plain view,” appellant offers only his difference of opinion regarding the significance of a Ziploc baggie at the scene of a drug investigation. Appellant also argues, without support from the record, that “t he search was not performed to search for weapons,” in contrast to Deputy Jacob’s testimony that she was17. concerned for officer safety after observing appellant reaching toward his waist or pocket in a furtive manner. Appellant further contends that a “pat-do wn” is limited to a search for weapons and does not extend to evidence of a crime. There was no “pat-down” performed in this case. Moreover, even if Deputy Jacob had per formed a pat-down, the

frisk allowed under Terry has been extended to permit seizure of nonthreatening

contraband detected within the confines of a Terry search. State v. Purley, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-18-011, 2019-Ohio-3931, ¶ 40, citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373-375, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) (additiona l citation omitted.). {¶ 40} Considering the record in this case, with deference to the tria l court’s determination that Deputy Jacob had a concern for officer safet y and recognized the baggie as an immediately apparent indication of illegal drugs, we find no error in application of the “plain view” doctrine in this instance. Apparent Contraband and Field Test {¶ 41} In his final argument, appellant argues that the trial court sh ould have suppressed evidence of methamphetamine because Deputy Jacob per formed a field test without a warrant, characterizing the field test as a search of a closed container. However, a field test of an apparent illicit substance, visible within the Ziploc baggie, was not a search implicating any privacy interest, and appellan t identifies no “closed container” referenced anywhere in the record. {¶ 42} We previously determined that the baggie was in plain view, sti cking out of appellant’s pocket, and therefore, properly seized without a wa rrant. The issue, therefore,18. is whether the field test constituted a search that infringed u pon a legally protected privacy interest. The United State Supreme Court has determine d there is no legitimate privacy interest violated by a field test to identify the prese nce of drugs, once properly

seized. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 123, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984). {¶ 43} In Jacobsen, employees of a private freight carrier discovered a badly damaged package, revealing a white powdery substance concealed inside layers of wrapping. They notified the Drug Enforcement Agency and an age nt removed some of the powder to perform a field test, which confirmed the substan ce was cocaine. Jacobson at 111. The defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing, in part, that the field test was a

warrantless search and seizure. The trial court denied the mot ion, the defendant was convicted, and the issue was subsequently certified to and acce pted by the United States Supreme Court for review “because field tests play an important role in the enforcement of the narcotics law[.]” Jacobson at 113. {¶ 44} The Fourth Amendment protects “two types of expectations, one i nvolving ‘searches,’ the other ‘seizures.’” Id. A search involves an infringement of “an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider rea sonable[.]” Id. A seizure results from “meaningful interference with an individual’s poss essory interests in that property.” Id. The Court in Jacobson determined a private actor – the freight carrier’s employee – first viewed the white powder inside the package, an d the agent’s subsequent inspection of the package “enabled the agent to learn nothing t hat had not previously19. been learned during the private search.” Id at 120. Therefore, inspecting the package was not deemed a “search” that implicated the Fourth Amendment. Id. {¶ 45} Removing a baggie containing white power, furthermore, was not deemed a search in violation of any Fourth Amendment protection. Base d on the condition in which the agent viewed the package, “the package could no longe r support any expectation of privacy; it was just like a balloon ‘the distinc tive character [of which] spoke volumes as to its contents, particularly to the trained e ye of the officer.” The agent could temporarily seize the package, without a warrant, as an o bject containing apparent

contraband. Id. at 121, citing United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 700, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983) (additional citations omitted.). {¶ 46} The field test of the white powder, likewise, did not constitut e a “search” or a “seizure” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the

Court in Jacobsen reasoned: The question remains whether the additional intrusion occasione d by the field test, which had not been conducted by the Federal Exp ress agents and therefore exceeded the scope of the private search, was an unlawful “search” or “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendmen t. The field test at issue could disclose only one fact previously unknown to the agent – whether or not a suspicious white powder was cocaine. It could tell him nothing more, not even whether the substance was sugar or talcum powder. We must first determine whether th is can be20. considered a “search” subject to the Fourth Amendment-did it in fringe an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider rea sonable? The concept of an interest in privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable is, by its very nature, critically diff erent from the mere expectation, however well justified, that certain facts wi ll not come to the attention of the authorities. Indeed, this distinction und erlies the rule that Government may utilize information voluntarily disclosed t o a governmental informant, despite the criminal’s reasonable expec tation that

his associates would not disclose confidential information to t he authorities.

See United States v. White , 401 U.S. 745, 751-752, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 1125- 1126, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971) (plurality opinion). A chemical test that merely discloses whether or not a particul ar substance is cocaine does not compromise any legitimate interes t in privacy. This conclusion is not dependent on the result of any particular test. It is probably safe to assume that virtually all of the tests conducted under circumstances comparable to those disclosed by this recor d would result in a positive finding; in such cases, no legitimate inte rest has been compromised. But even if the results are negative – merely dis closing that the substance is something other than cocaine – such a result r eveals nothing of special interest. Congress has decided – and there is no question about its power to do so – to treat the interest in “privately” possessing21. cocaine as illegitimate; thus governmental conduct that can rev eal whether a substance is cocaine, and no other arguably “private” fact, c ompromises no legitimate privacy interest.

* * * We have concluded * * * that the initial “seizure” of the packa ge and its contents was reasonable. Nevertheless, as Place also holds, a seizure lawful at its inception can nevertheless violate the Fourth Ame ndment because its manner of execution unreasonably infringes possesso ry interests protected by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on “unreasonabl e seizures.” Here, the field test did affect respondents' posses sory interests protected by the Amendment, since by destroying a quantity of t he powder it converted what had been only a temporary deprivation of poss essory interests into a permanent one. To assess the reasonableness o f this conduct, “[w]e must balance the nature and quality of the intru sion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” * * * Applying this test, we conclude that the destruction of the pow der during the course of the field test was reasonable. The law en forcement interests justifying the procedure were substantial; the suspic ious nature of the material made it virtually certain that the substance teste d was in fact contraband. Conversely, because only a trace amount of materia l was22. involved, the loss of which appears to have gone unnoticed by r espondents, and since the property had already been lawfully detained, the “seizure” could, at most, have only a de minimis impact on any protected property

interest.

Jacobsen , 466 U.S. at 122–125, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85, citing Place, 462 U.S. at 703, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (additional citations omitted.). {¶ 47} In this case, Deputy Jacob seized the baggie as contraband, in plain view. She immediately suspected the baggie contained “dirty looking m eth” based on its appearance, and a field test confirmed the presence of methamph etamine. As in Jacobsen, the nature of the baggie as contraband was apparent to Deputy J acob, a trained officer serving with the drug task force. The field test, more over, implicated no privacy right as the law protects no privacy interest in the possession of an illicit drug, and the test itself would indicate only whether the substance was as ex pected – methamphetamine – and nothing more. Accordingly, Deputy Jacob did not need a w arrant to conduct a field

test under the circumstances. {¶ 48} Therefore, upon due consideration of the record in this case, w e find no error in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to supp ress. Appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.23. V. Conclusion {¶ 49} For the forgoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the William s County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs o f this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment affirmed. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pu rsuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J. ________________________

____ JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.

____________________________ Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE CONCUR.

____________________________ JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Cour t of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing th e final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.