OH3: Defendant went to jail, so he lost any standing in place he stayed

Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of an apartment where he “pretty much lived” and stayed a lot, until he ended up in jail. He was gone from the premises at the time of the search in jail. (Consent issue not decided.) State v. Messenger, 2010 Ohio 479, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 399 (3d Dist. February 16, 2010)*:

[*P16] Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in finding that Messenger failed to establish standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search of Mabe’s residence. The facts of this case are analogous to those in Williams, supra. Like the defendant-appellant in Williams, the residence searched belongs to another person (Mabe’s mother); Messenger possibly had some personal items (one or two shirts) in the residence; and Messenger was staying somewhere else at the time of the search (jail). 73 Ohio St.3d at 166. Although there was evidence that Messenger was staying at Mabe’s residence almost daily a year or two ago, for several months prior to the search Messenger was in jail and not an overnight guest in the house. The fact that Messenger was not an overnight guest at the time of the search is an important factor to consider. Williams, 73 Ohio St.3d at 166 (“*** there was no evidence that appellant was an overnight guest in the apartment at the time the police executed the search warrant.”) (emphasis added); State v. Davis (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 277, 285, 609 N.E.2d 174 (distinguishing the facts therein from Minnesota v. Olson, supra, on the basis that the defendant was not an overnight guest the evening of the search, nor even a week prior to the search.).

[Note: This is so wrong, I am just stunned by this court’s obtuseness. You go to jail so you lose any expectation of privacy in the place you stay? So, a person in jail has no reasonable expectation of privacy anywhere because the involuntary act of being jailed is a waiver? I don’t know of another court to have ever held that. How easy is that for the police to manipulate? The court should have decided the consent issue and not created this mess. Based on this holding, we know how the consent issue would come out, don’t we? One would hope that the Ohio Supreme Court would fix this, or maybe the court on rehearing. The cases the court cites don’t even apply, so the analysis becomes almost comical. You can get better work out of a first year law student than this court.]

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress because it would not have prevailed. The defendant’s vehicle, after his arrest, was being left on a highway, and would be a road hazard, so it had to be moved. Inventory followed. State v. Pierce, 2010 Ohio 478, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 392 (3d Dist. February 16, 2010).*

Defendant had no standing in the trailer of another where she kept 19 dogs which were being groomed and stored there. She did not live there. She had only an arrangement to keep her dogs there. She may have had a subjective expectation of privacy there, but it is not one that society recognizes as significant. State v. Wallen, 2010 Ohio 480, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 394 (3d Dist. February 16, 2010).*