OH12: Probation and its search condition doesn’t end with probationer’s arrest; house could be searched later

Defendant’s girlfriend was on probation, and she thus “consented” in advance to searches. She confessed during a probation visit that she used drugs, and they arrested her and then searched her and defendant’s place based on her probation search condition. Her arrest did not end the probation, and the search could occur. [The court doesn’t say it, but, essentially, he waived his reasonable expectation of privacy as to his living space by choosing to live with a probationer.] State v. Storer, 2019-Ohio-5166, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5231 (12th Dist. Dec. 16, 2019).

One of two officers at the scene of the stop testified at the suppression hearing, and he relied on information from the other to make the stop. This is the essence of the collective knowledge doctrine, and the other officer didn’t have to testify to justify the search. State v. Sidey, 2019-Ohio-5169, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5240 (3d Dist. Dec. 16, 2019).

This entry was posted in Collective knowledge, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.