OH9: Male driver’s consent to search car does not extend to female passenger’s purse; no apparent authority

The officer believed that the occupants of the car were having sex in exchange for money, but there was no probable cause or exigent circumstances, so the automobile exception did not apply. The male driver granted consent to search the car, but it obviously did not extend to the female passenger’s purse. There was no apparent authority. State v. Chojnowski, 2015-Ohio-1405, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1369 (9th Dist. April 13, 2015).

There was probable cause to arrest defendant in a cocaine conspiracy on the totality of circumstances as he was walking toward a Jeep where a drug deal was going on. Based on what the officers knew, it was fair inference he was heavily involved [not just a little involved]. United States v. Chavez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48677 (D. Conn. April 14, 2015).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not arguing the search lacked probable cause where the officer testified he stood outside defendant’s car and smelled marijuana coming from it. Shannon v. State, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 319 (April 14, 2015).*