OH6: Even if defendant vetoed consent, PC would have led to a search warrant, so search still valid

Defendant stayed at his wife’s place, but he was not on the lease. His wife had the authority to consent. He did not clearly object to the search. And, even if his statement to his wife was an objection to consent arguably valid under Randolph, there was plenty of probable cause, and the police could have gotten a search warrant, and that means that a search warrant would have issued if sought. Therefore, the motion to suppress was properly denied. State v. Lampkin, 2010 Ohio 4934, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4174 (6th Dist. October 8, 2010):

[*P75] In this case, evidence was presented at the suppression hearing that appellant’s wife and three children were the only residents listed on the application and approved to occupy the government subsidized home where the mask was found. Therefore, appellant was neither on the lease nor listed as a resident. As a result, his wife would have had the authority to give consent to the search, regardless of appellant’s objections. Moreover, the detective testified that appellant repeatedly stated to his wife, it’s “your home” and “you don’t have to let them search.” These statements indicate that appellant did not view the home as his own, even though he may have been staying there.

[*P76] Even presuming, arguendo, that appellant was living with his wife and did have authority as a co-tenant, we conclude that the evidence was still admissible. Appellant was physically present at the residence and his comments could be construed as an objection to the search consented to by his wife. Thus, under Georgia v. Randolph, supra, it is arguable that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the subsequent warrantless search and seizure of the mask from the bedroom. Nevertheless, prior to the search, appellant had been identified as one of the assailants by the victim and was placed under arrest shortly after the police entered the home. Since the police had probable cause and could have gotten a warrant and conducted the search of the home without appellant’s consent, the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Therefore, appellant’s motion to suppress the mask and its wrapper was properly denied.