State v. Deemer
2015 Ohio 3199
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On Aug. 8, 2014, New Philadelphia officer Miller stopped Jessica Deemer for crossing double yellow lines; Miller observed nervousness and constricted pupils and knew the car came from a known heroin house.
- Backup officers arrived; Officer Gobely asked Deemer (while she sat in the car) for consent to search. Deemer hesitated, looked to passenger Jason Carothers, who said consent was okay, and Deemer said "yeah, that's fine."
- Deemer and Carothers were then asked to exit the vehicle; by that time four police cruisers with lights were on scene and multiple officers surrounded Deemer.
- Video audio was missing for the initial exchange; audio resumed later showing Officer Miller telling Deemer something to the effect that if she went to jail that night and had anything on her person it would be a felony; Deemer then consented and officers found a syringe in a purse on the driver’s seat.
- Deemer was indicted for possession of drug abuse instruments. She moved to suppress, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion and involuntary consent; the trial court granted the motion and the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deemer's consent to search was voluntary | Consent was valid under the totality of the circumstances; officers properly obtained consent | Consent was not voluntary — given after coercive circumstances (multiple cruisers, officers surrounding her, and officer’s statement implying she could face a felony if jailed) | Trial court correctly found consent not voluntary; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (officer requests for consent are lawful; voluntariness tested by totality of circumstances)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio adopts totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness of consent)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent must be voluntary; knowledge of right to refuse not required)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable suspicion/probable cause determinations reviewed de novo)
- State v. Goffee, 161 Ohio App.3d 199 (standards for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (consent searches as exception to warrant requirement)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (appellate standard on manifest weight review)