OH10: “If that’s what you guys want to do” not consent

“If that’s what you guys want to do” in response to a request to search defendant’s car was not clear and unequivocal consent. Suppression order affirmed. State v. Mays, 2010 Ohio 3289, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 2789 (10th Dist. July 13, 2010).*

Defendant got out of a car that police then approached and smelled marijuana smoke and saw a blunt inside it. The search of defendant’s person was unjustified because the driver said that the blunt was his. State v. Johnson, 2009 Ohio 3436, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5922 (10th Dist. July 14, 2009):

[*P20] If the issue before us were the search of the car, Moore would apply. However, no testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress indicated that Johnson had any odor of marijuana smoke on him. At most, Johnson had been in a car while someone smoked marijuana earlier, but his presence in the car did not provide probable cause to believe he possessed marijuana at the time he was searched, especially in light of the driver’s acknowledgement that the marijuana belonged to him (the driver). There was no probable cause to believe that more marijuana or any other controlled substance was in the possession of anyone outside the car.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.