Despite Ms. Clark’s argument to the contrary, Officer Berry’s testimony established that he had probable cause to arrest Ms. Clark because he observed Ms. Clark commit a felony, that is, drug trafficking.
State v. Clark
Ninth District Appellate Court
Wayne County, Ohio
October 14, 2025
Why is this case important?
State v. Clark, is important because the court reaffirmed that probable cause to arrest for a felony such as a controlled drug buy observed the day before does not become stale simply because some time has passed before the arrest occurs. Once officers had probable cause to arrest Ms. Clark for drug trafficking, they were permitted to search her purse as a search incident to arrest because it was on her person at the time of the arrest.
Background
This matter arises out of a drug surveillance operation conducted by the Wooster Police Department and the Medway Drug Enforcement Agency. According to Officer Berry with the Wooster Police Department, the police received information from multiple informants that Ms. Jeanne Clark was selling methamphetamine and fentanyl. The police also received information that Ms. Clark kept the drugs on her person when she was “out and about.”
Controlled Buy and Traffic Stop with Consent to Search
On September 5, 2023, the police conducted a controlled purchase of 14 grams of methamphetamine from Ms. Clark at a hotel in Wooster. The following day, the police continued surveilling Ms. Clark. The police observed Ms. Clark exit the hotel and enter a vehicle with her dog and another woman. Ms. Clark sat in the front-passenger seat, and the other woman sat in the driver’s seat. The police initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle for a marked-lanes violation. An officer asked the driver if he could search her vehicle, and the driver consented to the search.
Order to Place Purse on the Ground for Canine Sniff
The driver, Ms. Clark, and Ms. Clark’s dog exited the vehicle. Officer Berry asked Ms. Clark if he could search her purse, which Ms. Clark was wearing on her person. Ms. Clark became “very defensive” and refused to allow Officer Berry to search her purse. Officer Berry then instructed Ms. Clark to put her purse on the ground so that a police canine could sniff her purse, which Ms. Clark refused to do. Officer Berry warned Ms. Clark that she could be charged with obstruction if she did not put her purse on the ground. Ms. Clark again refused to put her purse on the ground. Officer Berry then handcuffed and arrested Ms. Clark for obstruction. Moments after her arrest, Ms. Clark told Officer Berry that she had fentanyl in her purse. Officers then searched Ms. Clark’s purse and found “a large amount of Methamphetamine and Fentanyl . . . .”
Indicted
A grand jury indicted Ms. Clark on the following five charges: (1) Trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound with a forfeiture specification; (2) Possession of a fentanyl-related compound; (3) Aggravated trafficking in drugs with a forfeiture specification; (4) Aggravated possession of drugs; and (5) Illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia. Ms. Clark pleaded not guilty.
Motion to Suppress is Denied
With leave of court, Ms. Clark moved to suppress the evidence the police obtained during the search of her purse. Ms. Clark argued that the police lacked reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to detain her, and that the police lacked probable cause to search her purse. The trial court held a suppression hearing wherein the State presented testimony from Officer Berry. Ms. Clark’s counsel cross-examined Officer Berry, but did not present any witnesses on behalf of the defense. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Ms. Clark’s motion to suppress.
Plea Agreement
Ms. Clark subsequently pleaded no contest to trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound and aggravated trafficking in drugs, along with the attendant specifications. The State dismissed the remaining charges. The trial court accepted Ms. Clark’s plea, found her guilty, and sentenced her to a total of four to six years of imprisonment. Ms. Clark now appeals, raising two assignments of error for this Court’s review.
Note: There were two assignments of error. The first was a denial of Ms. Clark’s Due Process rights that the court denied. That error is not evaluated in this article.
Was the Search of the Purse ‘Incident to Arrest’?
In her second assignment of error, Ms. Clark argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress on the basis that the search was a search incident to arrest. Specifically, Ms. Clark argues that the record is “insufficient in establishing the lawfulness of an arrest” and “provides little detail as to the grounds for a search incident to arrest.” Ms. Clark also argues that the record does not clarify where her purse was at the time of her arrest. For the following reasons, this Court overrules Ms. Clark’s second assignment of error.
What Legal Block was Officer Berry Operating?
At the end of the suppression hearing, the trial court found that the search of Ms. Clark’s purse was a search incident to arrest, and that probable cause existed to arrest Ms. Clark based upon Officer Berry’s observance of the drug trafficking incident the prior day. The trial court also found that the officers were permitted to ask Ms. Clark to put her purse down so that the dog could sniff her purse, the results of which could have provided probable cause to search her purse.
Ms. Clark was Under Arrest at the Time of the Canine Sniff
In its subsequent judgment entry denying Ms. Clark’s motion to suppress, the trial court summarized the underlying facts, including Officer Berry’s involvement in the controlled drug purchase, Ms. Clark’s arrest the following day, and the search of Ms. Clark’s purse. The trial court again found that “Officer Berry had probable cause to arrest [Ms. Clark] for drug trafficking from his surveillance of [Ms. Clark] on September 5, 2023, regardless of [Ms. Clark’s] conduct on September 6, 2023. As a result of arresting [Ms. Clark], Officer Berry could search [Ms. Clark] and her purse incident to arrest.” This Court will now turn to the law regarding the Fourth Amendment, as well as the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement.
Established Case Law – Search Incident to Arrest
One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Smith at ¶ 11. A search incident to arrest “allows officers to conduct a search that includes an arrestee’s person and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control.” which may include the arrestee’s purse. Id. at ¶ 11, 13; State v. Mathews, 46 Ohio St.2d 72, 75 (1976) (holding that if the defendant’s arrest was lawful, “then the search of the purse clutched under her arm, and under her immediate control, was not unreasonable.”). “This exception ‘derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations.’” Smith at ¶ 11, quoting Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009).
As noted, Ms. Clark first argues that the record is “insufficient in establishing the lawfulness of an arrest” and “provides little detail as to the grounds for a search incident to arrest.” Ms. Clark’s argument in this regard lacks merit. “[T]he Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrest in public places where an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has occurred.” State v. Jordan, 2021-Ohio-3922, ¶ 26, quoting Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 565 (1999). “Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that the suspect is committing or has committed an offense.” State v. Steele, 2013-Ohio-2470, ¶ 26. “In addition, the Ohio Revised Code allows for warrantless arrests.” Griesmar v. Stow, 2025-Ohio-1993, ¶ 32 (9th Dist.), citing R.C. 2935.03.
Officer Berry’s testimony established that he had probable cause to arrest Ms. Clark because he observed Ms. Clark commit a felony, that is, drug trafficking.
Here, Officer Berry testified that the police began surveilling Ms. Clark because the police received information from multiple informants that Ms. Clark was selling methamphetamine and fentanyl. Officer Berry testified that he observed the controlled purchase of methamphetamine from Ms. Clark on September 5, 2023, via a live video stream. Officer Berry explained that the purchase occurred in a hotel room, and that Ms. Clark took 14 grams of methamphetamine out of a larger bag of methamphetamine and sold it to an undercover officer. Despite Ms. Clark’s argument to the contrary, Officer Berry’s testimony established that he had probable cause to arrest Ms. Clark because he observed Ms. Clark commit a felony, that is, drug trafficking. See O.R.C. §2925.03(C); Jordan at ¶ 26.
Body Camera Disputes Ms. Clarkes Argument
Second, Ms. Clark argues that the record does not clarify where her purse was at the time of her arrest. This Court rejects Ms. Clark’s argument outright. Officer Berry specifically testified that Ms. Clark’s purse was “[o]n her person” when he placed her under arrest. Officer Berry’s bodycam video, which the State played at the suppression hearing, corroborated his testimony. Thus, Ms. Clark’s argument in this regard lacks merit.
Analysis and Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Ms. Clark has not established that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to suppress. Ms. Clark’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Ms. Clark’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Wayne County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Clark, 2025 – Ohio – 4709.
State v. Clark, 2025 – Ohio – 4709 was issued on October 14, 2025 by the Ninth District Appellate Court and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Lorain, Medina, Summit and Wayne.
Lessons Learned
-
- Stale Probable Cause Doctrine – On November 9, 2021 the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the application of the Stale Probable Cause Doctrine as applied to arrest. In State v. Jordan, 2021 – Ohio – 3922 Cincinnati Police arrested Mr. LeAndre Jordan for Burglary eight days after CPD had established probable cause he committed a burglary. In that case Mr. Jordan claimed that time passage staled the probable cause. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio held differently “. Probable cause to support the issuance of an arrest warrant does not grow stale in the same ways as the probable cause that is necessary to support a warrant to search for particular evidence in a particular place. Probable cause to believe that particular objects exist in a particular place does not last indefinitely because delay in acting upon such probable cause affords opportunities for the evidence to be moved, hidden, or destroyed. On the other hand, there is nothing inherent in a delay that would make a suspect’s involvement in a criminal offense less probable. (“It is the rare case where ‘staleness’ will be relevant to the legality of a warrantless arrest. When there is a reasonable belief that someone has committed a crime, time by itself does not make the existence of that fact any less probable. Further investigation or circumstances could discredit information that supports the belief that the suspect has committed a felony, but Jordan has identified no facts that came to light between the time of the burglary and the time of his arrest that would have discredited the information that formed the basis of the officers’ probable cause for believing that he was involved in the burglary.”. In both Jordan and this case law enforcement did not identify ‘discredited the information that formed the basis of the officers’ probable cause’. This means that law enforcement did not identify a different suspect who committed the crime that the officers established probable cause. The Supreme Court of Ohio in the Jordan case specifically stated ‘[T]ime by itself does not make the existence of that fact any less probable.”. So too in this Clark case – the officers established probable cause on September 5, 2023 that Ms. Clark sold narcotics in the controlled buy at the hotel. The next day on September 6, 2023 , Ms. Clark was subject of the traffic stop and at that moment, the probable cause from the day before did not become stale and Officer Berry could have arrested in that moment.
- What Legal Block was Officer Berry Operating? Since probable cause to arrest was already established at the time of the traffic stop, Officer Bailey could have immediately placed Ms. Clark under arrest for Trafficking in Fentanyl. However, Officer Berry asked Ms. Clark for consent to search her purse as the court explained “Officer Berry asked Ms. Clark if he could search her purse, which Ms. Clark was wearing on her person.”. Here, Officer Berry was taking a conservative approach and did not need to ask for consent, since probable cause was established to arrest Ms. Clark.
- Search Incident to Arrest – On December 11, 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court issued U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) that established the Search Incident to Arrest Doctrine “It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement but also a ‘reasonable’ search under that amendment.”. Ten years later on June 20, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) “[I]t is not unreasonable for police, as part of a routine procedure incident to incarcerating an arrested person to search any container or article in his possession.”. Based on Robinson and Lafayette, Officer Berry may have immediately searched Ms. Clark’s purse.
Does your agency train on the Stale Probable Cause Doctrine?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!