OH5 follows FL3’s Jardine six days before FL SC overrules it

While the CI said he saw marijuana plants a week earlier and there was no showing of when that information was received, that did not undermine the search warrant for a grow operation in defendant’s barn. The use of a dog to sniff defendant’s residence was valid under State v. Jardine from Fla. 3d DCA [which the Florida Supreme Court rejected six days later]. State v. Cook, 2011 Ohio 1776, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 1528 (5th Dist. April 8, 2011).* [If they had Shepardized Jardine, they would have known that the Florida Supreme Court had already had it under submission. Review was granted June 2, 2009.]

Defendant’s stop and subsequent search incident were lawful, but the officer’s use of defendant’s cell phone was not under State v. Smith, 2009 Ohio 6426, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 920 N.E.2d 949 (2009). State v. Todd, 2011 Ohio 1740, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 1511 (2d Dist. April 8, 2011).*

It was reasonable for the police to conclude that defendant’s girlfriend had apparent authority to consent to a search of the premises. She had just gotten out of the shower, and she had clothes there. The question is not whether she lived there; “the court should have analyzed the evidence using the following legal standard: did the police have an objectively reasonable belief that Crane possessed the apparent authority to give consent to the officers to search the premises?” Since she stated she lived there, that was apparent authority. State v. Wallace, 2011 Ohio 1741, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 1518 (2d Dist. April 8, 2011).*

Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion or not, defendant’s flight and abandonment of a baggie of drugs in flight was a waiver of any expectation of privacy. State v. Wynn, 2011 Ohio 1832, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 1580 (2d Dist. April 15, 2011).*