# State v. Murrell

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 3, 2002 · 94 Ohio St. 3d 489

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783773

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Murrell
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 3, 2002
- **Citations:** 94 Ohio St. 3d 489; 764 N.E.2d 986
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pfeifer
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 74 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783773

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that “[t]he majority acknowledges that the occupant must first be removed from the automobile and placed under arrest before the police officer may search the automobile. Therefore, since the occupant is already under arrest and separated from the vehicle, the Chimel…

## Opinion text

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting. This court’s holding in State v. Brown (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 349 , 588 N.E.2d 113 , should control this case. The Brown opinion is measured and wise, and allows for the search of the interior of an automobile incident to a driver’s arrest when necessary. Under Brown , police officers can search an automobile if there is probable cause to suspect that the vehicle contains contraband, if there is a suspicious item in plain view, or if an officer is searching for weapons within the immediate control of the suspect. These are all reasonable exceptions to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches. The majority’s holding today seems inclined to skirt the Fourth Amendment rather than work within it. I dissent and also join the dissent of Chief Justice Moyer.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6783773. Public record. Not legal advice.