OH11: Officer’s failure to mention consent in his reports undermined his credibility at the suppression hearing

Police came to defendant’s girlfriend’s house to arrest him, and she allegedly let them in to look but they found methamphetamine too. No consent was mentioned in the police report, and she denied it. The trial court found no consent, and its findings are sustained on appeal. State v. Newsome, 2016-Ohio-3509, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 2354 (11th Dist. June 20, 2016).

Defendant moved to suppress, among other things, the search of his cell phone. In its post-hearing briefs, the government says it will not offer the contents of the cell phone at trial. Therefore, it is moot. United States v. Derrick, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81258 (D.Minn. June 2, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80115 (D. Minn. June 20, 2016).*

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

Comments are closed.