OH11: Defendant had no standing to challenge search of brother’s house

Defendant filed an ineffectiveness claim against counsel for advising him to plead guilty without contesting the search of his person. His brother, however, contested the search of his house and prevailed. The court held that defendant had no standing to contest the search of the house because he was a mere social guest [completely overlooking the fact that he obviously has standing to challenge a search of his own person]. State v. Derricoatte, 2013 Ohio 3774, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 3932 (11th Dist. September 3, 2013)*:

[*P22] In this case, appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance stemmed from trial counsel’s refusal to file a motion to suppress on his behalf. In maintaining that such a motion would have been granted, and thus resulted in the dismissal of all three charges against him, appellant primarily relied upon the fact that his brother had prevailed on a motion to suppress in his separate criminal proceeding. As to the factual basis for such a motion, appellant’s motion to withdraw merely asserted that the packet of cocaine was discovered on his person during a general search of his brother’s residence.

Note: This decision, issued on the first business day of September, is already the leading contender for obtuse decision of the month. How could the court miss the fact he had to have standing to contest the search of his own person? In Brendlin, the passenger had no standing to contest the search of the car, but he sure had standing to challenge the stop of the car because it was a stop of him, too. So to with a search of the person.