State v. Corbin
957 N.E.2d 849
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Corbin was indicted for murder and tampering with evidence in Wood County, Ohio.
- Corbin moved to suppress evidence, challenging searches of Coldwell’s residence, his belongings, and his person.
- Suppression hearing occurred; trial court denied the motion; trial ended with Corbin guilty on both counts.
- Court sentenced Corbin to 15 years to life for murder and 5 years for tampering, to be served consecutively.
- Appeal challenged warrantless entries, subsequent warrant, warrantless seizure of property, and warrants for DNA sampling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entries/searches of the residence were lawful | Corbin asserts lack of consent and no exigency. | Corbin argues the entries violated Fourth Amendment and Ohio Constitution. | Not well taken; third-party consent and lack of privacy interest supported upholding. |
| Whether the subsequent warrant was supported by probable cause | Probable cause lacking in the warrant for Coldwell's residence. | Warrant lacked sufficient basis; good-faith exception requested. | Not well taken; sufficient probable cause or, alternatively, good-faith exception applied. |
| Whether the bag left in Roe’s truck was abandoned and thus not protected | Property was abandoned; no privacy expectation. | Luggage remained Corbin’s property with privacy interests. | Not well taken; bag deemed abandoned, no reasonable privacy expectation. |
| Whether the DNA and related warrants were supported by probable cause | Lack of probable cause for warrants to search bag contents and collect DNA. | Probable cause supported; good-faith reliance on warrants is proper. | Not well taken; warrants supported by probable cause or saved by good-faith reliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest status establishes privacy expectation)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (apparent authority for third-party consent)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (third-party consent valid when reasonable belief of authority)
- United States v. Hilliard, 490 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2007) (reasonable belief in third-party authority can validate consent)
- United States v. Ayoub, 498 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2007) (apparent authority can justify third-party consent)
- State v. Sneed, 63 Ohio St.3d 3 (1992) (third-party consent and privacy expectations in Ohio)
- State v. Wilmoth, 22 Ohio St.3d 251 (1986) (probable cause and suppression standards in Ohio)
- United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to probable cause)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (deferential review of probable-cause determinations)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960) (abandoned property no Fourth Amendment protection)
- People v. Schmeck, Cal. 37 Cal.4th 240 (2005) (abandonment of property negates privacy expectation)