OH1: Defense counsel ineffective for not challenging state’s alleged consent after they announced “we’re going to be doing a search warrant here”

“The totality of the circumstances show that the signed consent-to-search form was not a product of consent, but an acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.” “As Gaston complied with Davis’s instructions to sit in a chair on the porch, Davis stated, ‘We’ve got—we’re going to be doing a search warrant here.’ After Gaston repeatedly indicated that he was alone in the house, officers entered the home and announced, ‘POLICE DEPARTMENT, SEARCH WARRANT.’ The officers conducted a sweep of the home. Two hours later, Gaston is seen on the porch in handcuffs surrounded by officers, with several officers lingering inside of the home. Gaston was handed a consent-to-search form and informed by police that ‘it will speed up our process.”’ Defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the alleged consent. State v. Jones, 2023-Ohio-844, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 825 (1st Dist. Mar. 17, 2023).

The city was without authority to require landlords to do many things, one of which was to permit warrantless inspections of rental property for code violations. Landlord Serv. Bureau v. City of Pittsburgh & Council of Pittsburgh, 2023 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 24 (Commw. Ct. Mar. 17, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.