OH5: This patdown was by consent

The patdown here was by consent. A request doesn’t ipso facto make it a demand. “{¶23} The United States Supreme Court further noted, ‘[w]hile most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response.’ I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247(1984); Drayton, supra, 536 U.S. at 205, 122 S.Ct. at 2113.” State v. Camp, 2014-Ohio-4498, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4407, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4416 (5th Dist. October 9, 2014).* [note two Lexis cites]

Defendant was stopped because he pulled into the driveway of a state trooper’s house, and he was either lost or up to no good. Once stopped, his answers about where he was going made no “geographical sense.” His eyes were bloodshot and he admitted being at a bar. The continuation of the stop for suspicion of DUI was proper. State v. Todd, 2014-Ohio-4489, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4411 (5th Dist. October 9, 2014).*

Search of car trunk issue was not “asserted with sufficient particularity” to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Hackler, 2014-Ohio-4500, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4419, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4415 (5th Dist. October 9, 2014).*