In State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74, 2001 Ohio 149, 748 N.E.2d 520, paragraph 2 of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court held as follows: "During a routine traffic stop, it is unreasonable for an officer to search the driver for weapons before placing him or her in a patrol car, if the sole reason for placing the driver in a patrol car during the investigation is for the convenience of the officer." In that case, a state trooper stopped the defendant's vehicle for speeding. The trooper then told the defendant to get into the patrol car and advised the defendant that he would be patted down for weapons. The pat down revealed cocaine. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress. The appellate court reversed, finding that "there was no reasonable, objective basis for Officer Davies to pat-down appellant, based upon the totality of the circumstances." The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed this conclusion and stated: "To subject a driver to such an intrusion, when the underlying reason for placing him or her in the patrol car is mere convenience, would effectively eviscerate the Terry standard without justification. In this case, Trooper Davies testified that it was his practice during a traffic stop to pat down the driver and to place the driver in his patrol car during the investigation. To the extent that Trooper Davies's pat-down search of the defendant was due to this practice, the search of the defendant for weapons was unreasonable." Accord, State v. McCaulley, 161 Ohio App.3d 568, 2005 Ohio 2864, 831 N.E.2d 474 (A pat down of an individual who is to be placed inside of a police cruiser is not permitted where the individual is placed in the cruiser for the convenience of the officer).