Ohio remarkably finds consent to a patdown voluntary during a traffic stop when not free to leave

Consent to a patdown during a traffic stop was voluntary. When officer reached pocket with marijuana in it, defendant reached in and pulled it out. The search was reasonable. State v. Buck, 2006 Ohio 4394, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4331 (2d Dist. August 25, 2006):

Officer Combs testified that after he removed Buck from the vehicle, “I requested a pat down on him. He said that was fine, (and I) went ahead and conducted the pat down.” (T. 8). There is no suggestion of coercion. Buck was then detained, but because his detention was lawful his voluntary consent waives any claim of illegality in the pat-down search.

Comment: Once a traffic stop has begun and an officer asks for consent to do a patdown, without reasonable suspicion, the stop has been extended by that patdown. Was the defendant told he was free to go when this happened? This is not shown by the opinion. The opinion talks about nervousness, but it is clear that nervousness alone is not enough. So, the question boils down to this: Would a reasonable person who is outside of his car during a traffic stop, who is asked for consent to a patdown, believe that he was free to go when he consented? Not hardly. Therefore, the Ohio court is wrong.

Defendant, a personal injury lawyer, charged with defrauding insurance companies, had no standing to challenge the search of computers in the law office in which he worked where he claimed he was acting at the direction of others. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 2006 Mass. LEXIS 542 (August 25, 2006):

However, the record does contain evidence that the defendant did not own the premises from which the computer files were seized. Indeed, part of the defense was that the defendant had no authority at the law firm and was just doing what he was told by the firm’s owners. Moreover, the files were freely accessible to others in the law firm, including the owners and secretaries.

PC shown from information from a “concerned citizen” that appeared to be no more than a snitch because it was from first-hand observations [this is really thin]. State v. Barnaby, 2006 MT 203, 333 Mont. 220, 142 P.3d 809 (August 23, 2006):

The application for a search warrant begins with credible information of Sheridan’s involvement in the production of methamphetamines. A concerned citizen reported from first-hand knowledge and personal observations that Galpin, a well-known methamphetamine manufacturer, taught Sheridan how to produce methamphetamines. The first-hand report of a concerned citizen generally represents reliable information.

While officers were outside their jurisdiction and a violation of state statute occurred, the stop was based on probable cause and exigent circumstances and was valid under the Fourth Amendment and state constitution. State v. Smith, 908 A.2d 786 (N.H. August 23, 2006).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.