OH9: No standing in a drug house

Location of search was a drug processing house, not a residence, so defendant had no standing as a guest. State v. McCoy, 2008 Ohio 4947, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4150 (9th Dist. September 29, 2008):

[*P10] It is obvious from the evidence that the house at 1114 W. 18th Street was a place for storing and trafficking drugs, and not a traditional place of residence. When asked to describe the inside of the house in question, one of the arresting police officers stated: “It appeared to be a place where they were bringing in marijuana, cocaine, [and] they were repackaging it for distribution.” The nature of the house had been so converted by the lessee that it had lost its character as a residential dwelling and with it the heightened protection inherent in such property. Furthermore, McCoy presented no testimony or evidence outside of his own assertions that showed he actually had the permission required to receive protection as an “overnight guest”. See Gulley at P25 (“Although social guests enjoy Fourth Amendment protection in certain instances, privacy does not attach per se upon a person’s blanket assertion that [he is] a guest in another’s home.”).

Consenter who signed a consent form in Spanish had apparent authority to consent to search whole premises. United States v. Aragon-Ruiz, 551 F. Supp. 2d 904 (D. Minn. 2008).*

Actual renter of rental car was not present, but an authorized driver was the passenger, and he could consent to a search of the car. State v. Morgan, 2008 Ohio 4948, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4154 (9th Dist. September 29, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.