State v. Carothers, 47 N.E.3d 483

On Aug. 8, 2013, police stopped a vehicle for crossing a double yellow line; Jason Carothers was a passenger. The driver, Jessica Deemer, appeared nervous and had dilated pupils. No one contested the legality of the initial traffic stop.
While Officer Miller prepared a ticket, Officers Gobely and Sgt. Jones arrived; Gobely asked Deemer for consent to search the vehicle. Deemer hesitated and looked to Carothers. Carothers allegedly told officers they could search and Deemer then consented to the vehicle search.
Officers had Deemer exit the vehicle and then asked Carothers to exit and place his hands on the car. Gobely patted Carothers down, asked about contents of his pockets, and requested consent to search them. Carothers allegedly agreed and pockets produced nothing.
Officers then requested Carothers remove his shoes to inspect them. During removal of his left shoe officers found heroin and cocaine in the shoe. Carothers was indicted for possession of cocaine and heroin.
At a suppression hearing the trial court found Carothers did not voluntarily consent to a search of his person or to removal/search of his shoes, concluding the shoe removal was done in response to police commands. The trial court granted the motion to suppress and the State appealed under Crim.R. 12(K).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carothers voluntarily consented to search of his person/shoes	State: totality shows voluntary consent to search; consent exception to warrant requirement	Carothers: he removed shoes in response to police order, not voluntary consent	Court: consent was not voluntary; trial court's factual finding supported by evidence — suppression affirmed
Whether contraband was inevitably discoverable	State: discovery of syringe in driver’s purse would have led to lawful search of vehicle and passengers	Carothers: contraband would not inevitably have been found absent the unlawful search	Court: inevitable discovery not established because car search was tainted by earlier unlawful search; State failed to show lawful alternate means

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes stop-and-frisk/reasonable, articulable suspicion standard)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent searches analyzed under totality of circumstances; no requirement to advise of right to refuse)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (consent requests by police generally lawful; voluntary consent can exist without explicit rights advisal)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations reviewed de novo)
State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (consent-to-search burden on prosecution; totality-of-circumstances test under Ohio law)
State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 (adopts inevitable discovery exception under Ohio law)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (formulates federal inevitable discovery doctrine)