State v. Council
2017 Ohio 9047
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile M.W., living with his mother Monique White, was on juvenile probation; probation officers saw a social-media photo suggesting M.W. had an assault rifle and suspected he was helping a fugitive relative.
- Probation officers, with reasonable grounds under R.C. 2152.19(F), conducted a warrantless search of the residence, including common areas, M.W.’s room, and Monique White’s bedroom where appellant Carlton Council (an overnight guest who shared that bedroom) slept.
- Officers found a lock box in Monique White’s bedroom, forced it open, and discovered drugs and cards belonging to Council and White. Those items led to drug-possession charges against Council.
- Council moved to suppress, arguing R.C. 2152.19(F) permits searching only areas the juvenile is expressly or impliedly permitted to use or occupy (i.e., M.W.’s room and common areas), not a parent’s bedroom where the juvenile lacked access. The trial court denied suppression; Council pled no contest (to preserve appeal) and appealed.
- The appellate court reviews the denial of suppression de novo on legal questions, accepting trial-court factual findings if supported by competent, credible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2152.19(F) authorizes warrantless searches of a juvenile probationer’s entire residence, including areas the juvenile does not occupy (e.g., parent’s bedroom) | The probation notice to the parent authorizes probation officers to search the residence; scope reasonably includes the whole house when officers have reasonable grounds | Statute only permits searching places the juvenile has express or implied permission to use, occupy, or possess; parent’s bedroom was outside juvenile’s control, so search exceeded scope | R.C. 2152.19(F) allows searching the delinquent child’s place of residence as notified to the parent; the juvenile’s status permitted the search of the shared bedroom and other parts of the residence in this case (probation-search exception applied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1992) (trial court is factfinder on suppression hearing factual issues)
- Fanning v. State, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (appellate courts accept trial-court factual findings supported by credible evidence)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2001) (probationer subject to search condition has diminished privacy; reasonable suspicion justifies search)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent is an exception to the warrant requirement)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2006) (co-occupant’s consent can justify search when sharing control or access)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (apparent authority can validate third-party consent to search)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (guests may have a reduced expectation of privacy in a host’s home)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- Akron Airport Post No. 8975 v. State, 19 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 1985) (consent as exception to warrant requirement)