OH9: Randolph doesn’t require target be asked for consent first

Defendant’s wife consented to the search of their house. There is no duty of the police to first ask the target of the search for consent under Randolph. The claim her consent wasn’t voluntary wasn’t in the motion to suppress nor litigated so it’s waived. State v. Nestor, 2016-Ohio-1333, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 1223 (9th Dist. March 30, 2016).

Defendant was stopped for doing 95 on I-84 in Massachusetts. His passenger didn’t have a seatbelt on, and the officer asked her for her ID. She didn’t have it, but gave name and DOB and didn’t seem sure of the year of birth. With her out of the car, they gave inconsistent answers about each other. She had her cell phone and allowed officers to call her mother, who said she was a 16 year old runaway. She permitted a search of her phone, and text messages from defendant were there about pimping her out. She consented; he had no “standing.” United States v. Gemma, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5852 (1st Cir. March 30, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Consent, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.