MEMORANDUM
To: The Professor
From: xxxxxxxx
Date: February 2, 2020
Case: State v. Mesa
Statement of Assignment
The assignment requires a critical analysis of the case State V. Mesa to determine whether there was breach of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The assignment aims at looking at pertinent issues raised by both the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to an inventory search done in 1996. The Fourth Amendment to the United States specifies the instances where police should search and confiscate items. Failing to follow these rules can badly jeopardize the prosecution case. This is because evidence on items impounded in a search that ignores the standard procedures can be suppressed by a court of law (Carmen & Hemmens, 2016) .
Case summary
The appellee in this case is Jose Mesa who was arrested on December 27, 1996 in Cleveland, Ohio. The arrest followed a warrant issued by the Lakewood Municipal Council. The arresting officer conducted an inventory search before towing Mesa’s car. As the search was ongoing, one officer opened the armrest console next to the driver’s seat and found a loaded nine-millimeter handgun. The console was closed but had not been locked. All items confiscated from the car were the listed and the reports handed to the police department. Mesa was then charged in January 1997 at the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury. He had six charges against him. These included rape (count 1), felonious assault (count 2) and gross sexual imposition (count 3 and 4). Others included theft (count 5) and carrying a concealed weapon (count 6). However, Mesa filed two motions in relation to count 6. He moved to have count 6 (concealed weapon) charge tried separately. Mesa also moved to have the admission of the handgun suppressed as evidence (Case Text, 2020) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In March 31, 1997, Mesa’s motion to have count 6 tried separately was granted. The second motion on whether to suppress the handgun as evidence was deferred until the counts were determined. The Jury found Mesa, the appellee not guilty of counts 1, 3, 4 and 5. The appellee was also acquitted on count 2. The hearing on the concealed weapon charge was heard on April 10, 1997. This case was determined in favor of the Mesa, the appellee. The evidence with regards to the gun was suppressed. However, the State of Ohio filed an appellee with regards to the ruling of the Cuyahoga County courts with respect to the suppression of evidence as to the loaded gun. Through a split decision, the court of appeal upheld the decision of the lower court (Case Text, 2020) .
Issue
The main issue in this appeal by the state of Ohio is whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. constitution. The fourth Amendment is applied to the states through the fourteenth Amendment and/or Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution. Lakewood police officers conducted an inventory search on a closed but not locked console of an impounded car. According to USlegal.com (2020), an inventory search is a search that is routinely carried out on an impounded vehicle. This search does not require a warrant because the vehicle is legally impounded. The reason behind an inventory search is that the arresting police officers bear the responsibility of the contents of the impounded vehicle. Any contents taken should be listed down. Items confiscated during an inventory can be used by the prosecution. This is according to a ruling by the supreme court. However, any inventory search must follow the existing policies as stipulated by the established departments. Further, an inventory search should be able to guarantee the safety of the police and the community from dangerous contents. Although the contents of an inventory search can be used during prosecution, the aim of such a search should not be to obtain evidence with regards to a specific case (Carmen & Hemmens, 2016) .
Court Decision
The Cuyahoga County Courts ruled to suppress the evidence with regard to the loaded gun impounded during an inventory search. This ruling was relied on the State v. Hathman (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 403 , 604 N.E.2d 743 . The court noted that the inventory search was defective because there lacked a policy on searches on unlocked but closed containers. The court also ruled out that the Lakewood police officers violated their own written procedures on an inventory search. The department’s policy was only opened containers were to be search during a standard inventory search. The policy notes that locked containers are not to be opened in a standard inventory search. The console opened by the officer was closed but not locked. The Cuyahoga County Courts noted that there was no policy that stipulated what needed to be done in the case of a closed but not locked container. The final decision of the court was to suppress the evidence with respect to loaded gun impounded during the search (Case Text, 2020) .
The court of appeal ruled in agreement with the lower court through a split decision. The lower court had ruled that the inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The first task was to prove whether the arrest warrant issued initially by the Lakewood Municipal was valid. Mesa, the appellee, contended that the criminal complaint against him lacked sufficient facts to point to a probable cause. He also claimed that the prosecution violated Crim.R. 4(A)(1) by testifying with unrecorded statements. This, he claimed was just hearsay which was not admissible in court according to Crim.R. 4(A)(1). The court of appeal ruled that the appellee was lawfully arrested (Case Text, 2020) .
In respect to the inventory search, the State of Ohio (appellant) in this case, contended that the search on Mesa’s car was done in good faith and was not geared towards getting evidence for prosecution. The appellant noted that all the policies were followed during the search. The court of appeal agreed with the appellant in this case. This was on the premise that the arrest was lawful and therefore the inventory search did not require a search warrant. They also agreed with the appellant that the search was conducted in good faith. The ruling was anchored on two cases with respect to the Fourth Amendment to the United States. In the he South Dakota v. Opperman [1976], 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 and Colorado v. Bertine [1987], 479 U.S. 367 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 , the court ruled that any inventory search should follow set standards and should be done in good faith. The majorities in the court of appeal ruled out that the inventory search contravened the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is because the written departmental policy was vague on the search on a closed but not locked container. The court of appeal noted that the policy was not clear as to whether during an inventory search closed or locked containers could be opened (Case Text, 2020) .
References
Carmen, R., & Hemmens, C. (2016). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice. New york: Cengage Learning.
Case Text. (2020). State v. Mesa . Retrieved from Case Text: https://casetext.com/case/state-v-mesa-3
USLegal. (2019). Inventory Search Law and Legal Definition . Retrieved from USLegal: https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inventory-search/
