State v. Clements, 2016 Ohio 3201

Deputies from Hocking County units investigated complaints that Robert E. Clements was manufacturing meth at his home; they encountered his daughter (Beth) in the front yard and interacted with her and Clements.
Deputy Woodgeard followed Beth into the house through an open door without asking or receiving her consent and made several brief re-entries and cursory walkthroughs while she showered. He did not seize anything during those intrusions.
Outside on the porch, Deputies Covert and Brown spoke with Clements, told him he was free to leave, and he admitted to having marijuana in his safe. Deputies presented a consent-to-search form which Clements signed (the physical form was lost).
After signing, Clements led deputies to his safe and opened it; deputies seized marijuana and coffee filters containing methamphetamine.
The trial court found Woodgeard’s earlier entry improper but concluded the later consent was voluntary and that the seized evidence was not causally connected to the improper entry. Clements pleaded no contest to illegal manufacture and aggravated possession and appealed the denial of his suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clements voluntarily consented to the warrantless search	State: consent was voluntary — Clements signed a consent form, was not in custody, cooperated, and deputies used no coercion	Clements: consent was not voluntary because of the prior illegal entry and alleged coercive atmosphere	Court: Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; majority of trial-court factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence
Whether evidence is fruit of an illegal entry (derivative evidence)	State: evidence from the safe was obtained after valid consent and not caused by Woodgeard’s prior entry	Clements: Woodgeard’s warrantless entry/search tainted the subsequent consent and evidence	Court: Woodgeard’s entry was improper but there was no causal connection to the later evidence; exclusion not required

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable subject to established exceptions)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent judged by totality of circumstances; knowledge of right to refuse is a factor, not a prerequisite)
Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (exclusionary rule and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree principle)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (trial court is the factfinder in suppression hearings; appellate courts accept factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence)
State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (2006) (appellate review framework for suppression; voluntariness of consent evaluated under totality of circumstances)