Summarize the following case using IRAC and link it to Lisa's case down below, how are they different:

 Shortly after 3:00 a.m., Officer Paul Gramlich was on patrol with his canine when he spotted an SUV traveling southbound on Northfield Road. Because the car's rear license plate was not properly displayed, he executed a trafficstop. He approached the carand spokewiththedriver and R.L., the front seat passenger.Both occupants exhibited behavior that aroused his suspicions,so he retrieved his canineandledit aroundthe car.Afterthe canine alerted, he removed R.L. and the driver,patted them down, and had them waitoutside while he searched the car.

{13}Officer Gramlich uncovered a small amount of marijuana in the car,including leaf shake on the passenger's side. He then searched R.L., found a cigarettepack onhis person, and searched the pack. Inside the pack, hediscoveredseveral baggies of cocaine.R.L. was alsocarrying over$700 in cash.

{14} Agrand jury indicted R.L. on one count of traffickingincocaine,onecount of possession of cocaine, and one forfeiturespecificationrelated to thecash.R.L.fileda motion to suppress,challenging the constitutionality of the searchof his person. The State responded in opposition to hismotion, and the court held a hearing.Following the hearing, thecourt granted the motion to suppress.

{15} The State immediately appealed from the trial court's ruling in favor of R.L. on hismotion tosuppress. Its appeal is now before us and contains one assignment of error for

review.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE.

{16} In its sole assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court erred whenitgranted R.L.'smotionto suppress. Specifically, it argues that OfficerGramlich hadaconstitutional basisto search R.L. This Court disagrees.

{[7} A motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact.Statev.Burnside,100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372,8."When considering amotion tosuppress, thetrial courtassumes therole oftrier of factandis therefore in the bestpositionto resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of witnesses."Id.,citingStatev.Mills,62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366 (1992).Thus, a reviewingcourt"mustacceptthe trial court's findings offactif they are supported by competent,credible evidence."Burnsideat 8."Accepting these facts as true,the appellate court mustthen independentlydetermine,without deference to theconclusionof the trial court, whether the factssatisfytheapplicable legal standard."Id.,citingStatev.McNamara,124 Ohio App.3d 706 (4th Dist.1997).

{8}"'[W]hen a [trained drug] dog alerts to the presence of drugs [inside a vehicle],it gives law enforcement probablecauseto search the entire vehicle.'"Statev.Reid,9th Dist.Lorain No. 12CA010265, 2013-Ohio-4274,9, quotingStatev.Almazan,9th Dist.Medina No. 05CA0098-M, 2006-Ohio-5047, 15.AccordStatev.Dixon,9th Dist.Medina Nos.11CA0065-M,11CA0087-M, 2012-Ohio-4428, 10.That search extends to "every part of the vehicle and its contents, including all movable containers and packages,that maylogically concealthe object of the search."Statev.Welch,18 Ohio St.3d 88 (1985),syllabus. Yet, "[a] canine alert alone does notestablishprobable causesufficientto fullysearchor arrest [thepassenger] of a vehicle****Statev.Robinson,9th Dist.Wayne No.10CA0022,2012-Ohio-2428, 14.Absent some other exception to the warrant requirement, a search of the passenger's person mustbebasedonprobable cause that he has engaged or is engaging in criminal activity.SeeStatev.Kay,9th Dist.Wayne No. 09CA0018, 2009-Ohio-4801, 9-17.See alsoWyomingv.Houghton,526 U.S. 295,303(1999),citingUnited Statesv.Di Re, 331 U.S. 581 (1948).

*2{9} Probablecauseconsists of"'a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.'"State v.Moore,90 Ohio St.3d 47,49 (2000), quotingCarrollv.United States,267 U.S. 132,161[(1925)."[A]probablecausedeterminationisa fact-intensiveinquiryState v. Davis,

9thDist.SummitNo.29273,2020-Ohio-473, 19.The determination"is madefromthe totality of the circumstances. Factors to be considered include anofficer'sobservation ofsome criminal behavior by the defendant,furtive or suspicious behavior, flight, eventsescalating reasonable suspicion into probable cause, [and] association with criminals andlocations."Statev.White,9th Dist.Wayne No. 05CA0060, 2006-Ohio-2966, 24, quotingStatev.Shull,5th Dist.Fairfield No. 05-CA-30,2005-Ohio-5953,20.

{10} R.L. conceded the legality of the traffic stop that Officer Gramlichconductedas well as the sniff thathiscanine partner performed.In moving to suppress the evidence against him, R.L. only challenged the legality of the search of his person.Thetrial court made the following findings of fact in support of its legal determinationonthat issue.

{111} The trial court found thatR.L.appeared flushed when Officer Gramlich observed himand the officer interpreted that as nervousness.It found that,after Officer Gramlich's canine alerted to the front driver's side of the car,the officer removedR.L.and the driverfrom the car.Thecourtfoundthatthe officer did not considereither occupant dangerousand allowed them to sit on the guardrail next to the car while hesearchedit. The search ofthe car uncovered a marijuana roach,a vape pen,a small bag of marijuana,and marijuana leaf shake,the last of which was found on the passenger's side floor. After finding those items, Officer Gramlich searched R.L. and found a pack of cigarettes.He then searchedinside the pack of cigarettes andfoundseveral baggies of cocaine.

{12} The trial court determined,based on the totality ofthecircumstances,that OfficerGramlichconductedan unconstitutional search of R.L.'s person.The courtfoundthat theofficer failed to articulate any specific facts tending toshowthatR.L. hadengaged incriminal activity sufficient to warrant a search of his person. The court noted that the officeronly uncovered a minor misdemeanor amount of marijuana in the car. Because that discovery,inconjunctionwith R.L.'s flushed appearance,did not"support a reasonable

articulable suspicion that [R.L.] possessed contraband" or thatheotherwise had engaged in criminal activity,the court granted themotionto suppress.

{13} The State hasnot challengedany of the trialcourt'sfactual findings and, upon review,this Courtconcludesthat they are based on competent, credibleevidence.SeeBurnside,100 Ohio St.3d 152,2003-Ohio-5372,at8.OfficerGramlichtestified that the driver of thecar appeared nervous when he spoke withherand that R.L. kept very still, lookedflush,andalso seemed nervous.He did notindicatewhether heevenspoke withR.L., and therecording from his body cam shows that he only briefly addressed himwhile askingforhisidentification. For the most part, Officer Gramlich focused onthedriver'sbehaviorand her responses to his questions. The officer testified that, after his canine alerted to the front driver's side of the car, hedirectedR.L. and the driver to step out ofthecar. The bodycamrecording shows thathepatted down R.L. at that timeandthen proceededtosearchthecar.After hefound asmallamountofmarijuanain thecar, including shake on thepassenger's side floor,he searched R.L.andfounda pack of cigaretteson him.OfficerGramlich agreed that he searched R.L. without consent in order to look for additional contraband. Because the record supports the trial court'sfindings,this Court accepts itsfindings as true and considers its legalconclusions.See id.

*3{14} The State argues that the trial court erredwhen it concluded, basedon thetotalityof the circumstances, that Officer Gramlich lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct asearchof R.L.'s person. It argues thatthetotality ofthecircumstancessupportedthe conclusion that R.L. was engaged or was about to be engagedin criminalactivity. Those circumstances included the canine alert,thepresence of marijuana shake on thepassenger's side of the car,and thenervousnessof both the driver and R.L. Becausethosecircumstances generated reasonable suspicion for a search of R.L.'s person, the State argues, the court erred by granting the motion to suppress.

(115) Initially,this Court notes that both the trialcourtand the State haveincorrectlyfocusedonthequestionof reasonable suspicion. Though both reasonablesuspicionand probable cause entail a review of the totality of the circumstances, "[r]easonable suspicion is something less than probable cause***."Statev.Carey,9thDist.Summit No. 28689,2018-Ohio-831, 10.The two standards are not interchangeable and, whenanofficerconductsa warrantless search of the typedescribed herein,it mustbebased on probable cause. SeeKay,2009-Ohio-4801,at 9-17. The question, therefore,was whether Officer Gramlich had probable cause to search R.L.,notwhether he had reasonablesuspicion.Because the trialcourtnevertheless reached the correct result in this matter,this Courtmerely notes the flaw in its legal analysis.SeeStatev.Spaulding,9th Dist.SummitNo.28526, 2018-Ohio-3663, 36,quotingStatev.Wesson, 9th Dist.Summit No. 28574, 2012- Ohio-4495,31 ("'[T]hisCourt will not reverseacorrect judgment merely because of aflaw in the trialcourt'sanalysis.'").

{16} The record supports the conclusion that the State failedtoprove the search of R.L.'sperson was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.SeeStatev.Kessler,53 Ohio St.2d204, 207 (1978). Although Officer Gramlich's caninealertedto the presenceofnarcotics inthe car, the search of the car only uncovered a small amount of marijuana."The offense of possession of marijuana in an amount less than 100 grams constitutes aminormisdemeanor[,]" and is not an arrestable offense.Robinson, 2012-Ohio-2428,at 24.AccordStatev.Brown,99 Ohio St.3d 323,2003-Ohio-3931,22-25. Thus,the discovery of the marijuana did not provide Officer Gramlich with probable cause to arrest R.L. or to search himincident tothatarrest. Norwas the plain feeldoctrineapplicable herein, as the officer did not testify thatthe contraband inside thecigarettepackwas immediately apparent to him when he initially ordered R.L. out of the car and patted him down.SeeRobinson,2012-Ohio-2428,at 19.The evidenceshowedthatthecarbelongedtothedriver,not R.L., and that Officer Gramlich had very little interaction with R.L. His testimony primarily focused on the behavior of the driver, andtheonly observation he made about R.L. was that he seemed nervous. Yet, he did not attempt to develop his observation thatR.L. seemednervous. He did notask R.L. anyquestionsabout wherehehad come fromthat evening or where he was headed at such a late hour. Nor didhetestify thatR.L.failedto make eye contact with him, that he was hesitant to provide his identification, that heotherwise acted in an evasivemanner, or thatheengaged in any furtive movements.Histestimony was strictly that he searched R.L.becausehe seemednervous andhe found asmall amount of marijuana inthecar inwhichR.L. was a passenger. Basedonthe totalityofthecircumstances,this Courtcannotconclude thatOfficerGramlich had probable

cause to searchR.L.'sperson.Seeid.at 18-27;Kay,2009-Ohio-4801, at9-17. Accordingly,the State's sole assignment of error is overruled.

III.

*4 {17} The State's sole assignment of error is overruled.Thejudgment of the Summit CountyCourt of Common Pleasis affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Summarize Lisa's Case :

Lisa was pulled over for speeding on Bancroft Street in Toledo, Ohio. The police report indicates that the officer believed Lisa was "acting nervous", and the officer searched the glovebox of Lisa's vehicle and found cocaine. Lisa is being charged with Felony Possession, and has retained our office for representation. Your supervising attorney wants to know whether he has reasonable grounds to move to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated Lisa's Constitutional Rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, or whether we should negotiate a plea deal with the prosecutor. Please research whether speeding and "acting nervous" gives police sufficient probable cause to search Lisa's glovebox. Please prepare a brief case summary and analysis of any applicable authorities.