OH7: Search of wallet during a frisk for weapons unreasonable

Defendant was fidgety and he was removed from the car and frisked. His wallet was removed. He was allowed back in the car but was still fidgety [there was stuff in the backseat that would have made it uncomfortable]. He consented to a second frisk. Yet, no weapon was ever found. The officer finally searched his wallet admitting that he was unconcerned about a weapon. The search of the wallet was unreasonable. State v. Dunlap, 2013-Ohio-5637, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5898 (7th Dist. December 17, 2013).

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress alleging third-party consent was coerced when defense counsel was never informed of any facts by the defendant to support that argument. The police reports said it was by consent, and the defendant and his witnesses didn’t contradict it. Kinsella v. State, 2013 ND 238, 2013 N.D. LEXIS 249 (December 19, 2013). [Note: Doesn’t this beg the question of defense counsel’s duty to inquire into whether the police reports were correct? After all, the writer of the police report isn’t about to put in there that he “let me search, but I might have coerced consent.” When debriefing the client, it is defense counsel’s duty to at least ask about the voluntariness of consent and statements and the legality of searches.]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.