State v. Feeney, 2011 Ohio 5474

Feeney pleaded guilty in Stow Municipal Court on Jan 4, 2010 to disorderly conduct and using weapons while intoxicated and agreed to relinquish firearms for safekeeping.
Summit County Sheriff/police later went to Feeney’s home to retrieve the firearms as ordered by the municipal court.
On Feb 24, 2010, the grand jury indicted Feeney on multiple drug-related counts and related weapons offenses, plus a forensic-related forfeiture specification at issue.
Feeney moved to suppress on Mar 12, 2010; a two-day suppression hearing occurred May 20, 2010, during which the trial court evaluated the scope of the court order and consent issues.
On Oct 14, 2010 Feeney pled no contest to fourteen counts; he received an aggregate five-year sentence and was found to be a Tier II sex offender (entry Nov 30, 2010).
Feeney appealed December 14, 2010 challenging the suppression ruling; the Ninth District affirmed the trial court’s denial of suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of suppression was correct	Feeney contends parents lacked consent and search was a narcotics pretext	State asserts consent given and credibility for credibility determinations rests with trial court	Denial of suppression affirmed; credibility weighed in favor of State

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (appellate review of suppression requires independent legal review of trial court findings)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home searches without a warrant presumptively unreasonable)
Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (1988) (recognizes warrantless search exceptions to the Fourth Amendment)
State v. Price, 134 Ohio App.3d 464 (1999) (explains seven recognized exceptions to a warrant requirement)
Akron Airport Post No. 8975, 19 Ohio St.3d 49 (1985) (administrative search exception recognized)
Stone v. Stow, 64 Ohio St.3d 156 (1992) (analysis of consent to search and voluntariness under totality of circumstances)
Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) (voluntariness of consent must be shown by clear and positive evidence)