[Cite as State v. Hayes, 2024-Ohio-1254.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230437 TRIAL NO. B-2200211 Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
RACHEL HAYES, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 3, 2024
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellee. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} The state appeals from the trial court’s order granting defendant-
appellee Rachel Hayes’s motion to suppress evidence collected by police while she was
a patient at Bethesda North Hospital. For the following reasons, based on the authority
of United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), we
reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} In October 2021, Hayes was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital for
COVID-19. During a routine inventory of Hayes’s belongings, a nurse found a baggie
that she believed contained illegal drugs. The nurse alerted hospital security, who
called the police. A police officer conducted a warrantless search of Hayes’s belongings
and found the baggie. Hayes was subsequently indicted for aggravated trafficking in
drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and aggravated possession of drugs in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). Both offenses are second-degree felonies. Hayes filed a
motion to suppress, which the trial court granted following a hearing.
{¶3} At the suppression hearing, the police officer who conducted the search
testified that the security guard handed the officer a clutch purse and said either, “This
is the drugs,” or “This is the meth.” The officer testified that he looked inside the purse
and saw that “there was clearly methamphetamine, based on my training and
experience.”
{¶4} The trial court found the following facts:
An admitting nurse went through Ms. Hayes’[s] belongings to find her
phone and take inventory of her items. The nurse testified that this
practice is a routine admitting practice at the hospital to avoid liability
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
for lost items. During inventory, the nurse found a clear baggy
containing a white substance, which the nurse thought was drugs. After
finding the baggy in Ms. Hayes[’s] belongings, the nurse immediately
called hospital security and handed security Ms. Hayes’s backpack.
Before giving security the backpack, the nurse returned the items she
found and put them in the backpack.
Hospital security notified Montgomery Police, and a police officer
arrived at the hospital. Once the officer arrived, hospital security turned
over Ms. Hayes’s belongings to the police who then searched the purse
and discovered the above-mentioned items [the drugs, clear plastic
bags, a lid from a digital scale, and $847 in cash]. The officer testified
that the security officer handed the officer a clutch purse. The officer
then looked inside the purse and pulled out a baggy of drugs. Security
also told the officer that he found cash in Ms. Hayes’s belongings which
he put back in the backpack. Officers never obtained a warrant to search
Ms. Hayes’[s] purse, nor did they obtain her consent to search.
{¶5} At the suppression hearing, the state conceded that the police had not
obtained a search warrant for Hayes’s purse or backpack. The state argued that the
warrantless search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the original
violation of Hayes’s privacy was conducted by private actors, the nurse and security
guard, and the subsequent governmental search did not exceed the scope of the private
search. The trial court rejected the state’s argument and held that “the scope of the
search was unlawful when the officer searched the property of Ms. Hayes, as it went
above and beyond the original scope of the search [of the nurse and security guard].”
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
The state timely appealed.
II. Analysis
{¶6} In its sole assignment of error, the state contends that the trial court
erred in granting Hayes’s motion to suppress the evidence collected from her purse
and backpack during her stay at the hospital.
{¶7} In accordance with the Fourth Amendment’s protections against
unreasonable searches and seizures, the state must establish by the preponderance of
the evidence that a defendant’s property was not subject to illegal search or seizure.
State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 16. “Appellate
review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Id. at ¶ 17,
citing State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. “The
reviewing court must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by
competent, credible evidence, and the court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions
de novo.” Id.
{¶8} At the suppression hearing, the state argued that the initial search was
conducted by the hospital staff and thus was a private search, which cannot be a Fourth
Amendment violation. See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85,
quoting Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 65 L.Ed.2d 410
(1980) (“This Court has also consistently construed [the Fourth Amendment’s]
protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable ‘to a
search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting
as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any
governmental official.’ ”). The state argued that the subsequent police search did not
go beyond that which was conducted by the private party, and therefore did not violate
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 116, quoting Walter at 657 (“[T]he Government may
not exceed the scope of the private search unless it has the right to make an
independent search.”).
{¶9} In Jacobsen, the Court upheld the search of a package that had been in
transit through Federal Express, a private freight carrier. Jacobsen at 111. During
shipment, the package was damaged, and Federal Express employees opened the
package to examine its contents, pursuant to a company policy regarding such
occurrences. Id. The package consisted of a cardboard box, and inside the box, the
employees found a ten-inch tube made of silver tape. Id. Inside the tube, the employees
found four plastic bags containing white powder. Id. The employees then contacted
the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). Id. Before any DEA agents arrived,
the Federal Express employees replaced the bags into the tube and returned the tube
to the box. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Hayes, 2024-Ohio-1254.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230437 TRIAL NO. B-2200211 Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
RACHEL HAYES, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 3, 2024
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellee. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} The state appeals from the trial court’s order granting defendant-
appellee Rachel Hayes’s motion to suppress evidence collected by police while she was
a patient at Bethesda North Hospital. For the following reasons, based on the authority
of United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), we
reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} In October 2021, Hayes was admitted to Bethesda North Hospital for
COVID-19. During a routine inventory of Hayes’s belongings, a nurse found a baggie
that she believed contained illegal drugs. The nurse alerted hospital security, who
called the police. A police officer conducted a warrantless search of Hayes’s belongings
and found the baggie. Hayes was subsequently indicted for aggravated trafficking in
drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and aggravated possession of drugs in
violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). Both offenses are second-degree felonies. Hayes filed a
motion to suppress, which the trial court granted following a hearing.
{¶3} At the suppression hearing, the police officer who conducted the search
testified that the security guard handed the officer a clutch purse and said either, “This
is the drugs,” or “This is the meth.” The officer testified that he looked inside the purse
and saw that “there was clearly methamphetamine, based on my training and
experience.”
{¶4} The trial court found the following facts:
An admitting nurse went through Ms. Hayes’[s] belongings to find her
phone and take inventory of her items. The nurse testified that this
practice is a routine admitting practice at the hospital to avoid liability
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
for lost items. During inventory, the nurse found a clear baggy
containing a white substance, which the nurse thought was drugs. After
finding the baggy in Ms. Hayes[’s] belongings, the nurse immediately
called hospital security and handed security Ms. Hayes’s backpack.
Before giving security the backpack, the nurse returned the items she
found and put them in the backpack.
Hospital security notified Montgomery Police, and a police officer
arrived at the hospital. Once the officer arrived, hospital security turned
over Ms. Hayes’s belongings to the police who then searched the purse
and discovered the above-mentioned items [the drugs, clear plastic
bags, a lid from a digital scale, and $847 in cash]. The officer testified
that the security officer handed the officer a clutch purse. The officer
then looked inside the purse and pulled out a baggy of drugs. Security
also told the officer that he found cash in Ms. Hayes’s belongings which
he put back in the backpack. Officers never obtained a warrant to search
Ms. Hayes’[s] purse, nor did they obtain her consent to search.
{¶5} At the suppression hearing, the state conceded that the police had not
obtained a search warrant for Hayes’s purse or backpack. The state argued that the
warrantless search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the original
violation of Hayes’s privacy was conducted by private actors, the nurse and security
guard, and the subsequent governmental search did not exceed the scope of the private
search. The trial court rejected the state’s argument and held that “the scope of the
search was unlawful when the officer searched the property of Ms. Hayes, as it went
above and beyond the original scope of the search [of the nurse and security guard].”
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
The state timely appealed.
II. Analysis
{¶6} In its sole assignment of error, the state contends that the trial court
erred in granting Hayes’s motion to suppress the evidence collected from her purse
and backpack during her stay at the hospital.
{¶7} In accordance with the Fourth Amendment’s protections against
unreasonable searches and seizures, the state must establish by the preponderance of
the evidence that a defendant’s property was not subject to illegal search or seizure.
State v. LaRosa, 165 Ohio St.3d 346, 2021-Ohio-4060, 179 N.E.3d 89, ¶ 16. “Appellate
review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Id. at ¶ 17,
citing State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. “The
reviewing court must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by
competent, credible evidence, and the court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions
de novo.” Id.
{¶8} At the suppression hearing, the state argued that the initial search was
conducted by the hospital staff and thus was a private search, which cannot be a Fourth
Amendment violation. See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85,
quoting Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 65 L.Ed.2d 410
(1980) (“This Court has also consistently construed [the Fourth Amendment’s]
protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable ‘to a
search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting
as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any
governmental official.’ ”). The state argued that the subsequent police search did not
go beyond that which was conducted by the private party, and therefore did not violate
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 116, quoting Walter at 657 (“[T]he Government may
not exceed the scope of the private search unless it has the right to make an
independent search.”).
{¶9} In Jacobsen, the Court upheld the search of a package that had been in
transit through Federal Express, a private freight carrier. Jacobsen at 111. During
shipment, the package was damaged, and Federal Express employees opened the
package to examine its contents, pursuant to a company policy regarding such
occurrences. Id. The package consisted of a cardboard box, and inside the box, the
employees found a ten-inch tube made of silver tape. Id. Inside the tube, the employees
found four plastic bags containing white powder. Id. The employees then contacted
the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). Id. Before any DEA agents arrived,
the Federal Express employees replaced the bags into the tube and returned the tube
to the box. Id.
{¶10} When the first DEA agent arrived, the box had been placed on a desk.
Id. The agent could see that a hole had been punched in the side of the box, and the
top was open. Id. The agent removed the tube from the box, saw that the tube had been
slit open, and removed the plastic bags from the tube. Id. The agent then opened the
bags and removed a trace amount of the white powder with a knife blade. Id. at 111-
112. A field test showed that the white powder was cocaine. Id. at 112.
{¶11} The Jacobsen Court held first that the private action of the Federal
Express employees did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 115. The Court
went on to hold, “The additional invasions of respondents’ privacy by the Government
agent must be tested by the degree to which they exceeded the scope of the private
search.” Id. As the Court went on to describe, the federal agent’s inspection of the
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
contents of the package “enabled the agent to learn nothing that had not previously
been learned during the private search.” Id. at 120. The Court’s analysis indicates that
a mere reexamination by the government agent of that which was already inspected
by the private actor does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 119-121. “The
package itself, which had previously been opened, remained unsealed, and the Federal
Express employees had invited the agents to examine its contents. Under these
circumstances, the package could no longer support any expectation of privacy * * *.”
Id. at 121.
{¶12} The present circumstances are highly analogous. Pursuant to hospital
policy, the nurse conducted an inventory of the contents of Hayes’s backpack. After
discovering contraband, the nurse gave the backpack to hospital security, who
summoned the police.
{¶13} While it is unclear from the trial court’s findings of fact whether the
contraband was in plain view or whether the police officer had to open the backpack
and/or the purse to view the contraband, it ultimately does not matter. Pursuant to
Jacobsen, if the police search does not exceed the scope of the private search, then
there is no Fourth Amendment violation. Here the private search had already exposed
the contents of Hayes’s purse. The security guard informed the police officer of the
incriminating nature of the contents of the purse, and it was reasonable for the officer
to confirm the guard’s assessment—without exceeding the scope of the private search.
See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 119, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (“The agent’s viewing of
what a private party had freely made available for his inspection did not violate the
Fourth Amendment.”).
{¶14} Because the police search of Hayes’s purse did not exceed the scope of
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the private search, the warrantless search by the police was reasonable and did not
violate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court
and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
ZAYAS, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.