State v. Dieckhoner, 2012 Ohio 805

Dieckhoner was charged with drug possession in state court.
Lakewood officer stopped Dieckhoner for a headlight violation at about 12:15 a.m. in a mixed business/residential area.
After verifying license, the officer gave a verbal headlight warning and later asked to search Dieckhoner’s person.
Dieckhoner gave verbal consent to a search; a second officer stood nearby during the interaction.
A bag of cocaine was recovered from Dieckhoner’s coin pocket; he was arrested.
The trial court denied the suppression motion; the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was consent to search voluntary?	Dieckhoner argues consent was involuntary	State argues consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances	Consent not voluntary; search suppressed; remand
Is the pat-down/search valid as incident to arrest or for officer safety?	State contends search could be valid as incident or safety search	Dieckhoner contends no valid basis for search	Not reached; resolved by voluntariness finding

Robinette II, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997-Ohio-343) (totality-of-the-circumstances voluntary-consent standard)
Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntary consent requires free will, not mere submission)
Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (consent obtained under police authority must be voluntary)
Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946) (voluntariness of consent evaluated under totality of circumstances)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy; warrantless searches require exceptions)