State v. Givens, 2016 Ohio 4978

Police detectives investigating reports of prostitution on East Third Street identified Alysa Givens (wearing a pink jacket) as a suspected sex worker who had been told to be HIV‑positive.
Undercover Detective Cairns picked up Givens; she agreed to perform oral sex for $25 and was driven to a prearranged arrest location.
Givens was Mirandized, handcuffed, and placed in a patrol cruiser; detectives asked about communicable diseases and whether she had HIV. Givens initially denied, later admitted she tested positive at Miami Valley Hospital.
Within about 24 minutes from the initial encounter, detectives obtained statements from Givens; the next day a search warrant for her medical records was issued based on the investigation and her statements, confirming a positive HIV test in 2013.
Givens was indicted for solicitation after a positive HIV test and loitering to solicit after a positive HIV test; she moved to suppress her statements and evidence derived from them as involuntary.
The trial court denied the suppression motion, holding her statements voluntary and the warrant supported; Givens pled no contest to the solicitation count and appealed, arguing involuntariness and that the warrant lacked probable cause if her statements were suppressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Givens’s statements voluntary under due process?	Statements were voluntary; officers properly Mirandized and conduct did not overbear will.	Howard’s statement that it was illegal to lie about HIV and Givens’s alleged drug use coerced her confession.	Held voluntary: short interview, no threats/promises, correct statement of law, no indicia of coercion.
Did any misstatement of law by police render confession involuntary?	Officer’s warning about lying was a correct legal statement given the circumstances.	The statement was a threat of additional charges and coerced admission.	Held not coercive; correct or noncompelling warning did not overbear will.
Should evidence obtained via medical‑records warrant be suppressed as fruit of involuntary statements?	Warrant was supported by probable cause independent of any suppressible statement.	If statements suppressed, affidavit would lack probable cause and records should be excluded.	Held warrant had a substantial basis; even without the HIV admission remaining affidavit provided probable cause.
Was Miranda waiver valid and relevant to voluntariness?	Miranda warnings were given and waiver valid; voluntariness is a separate due‑process inquiry but presumption favors admissibility.	Givens contends her waiver/confession were not knowingly/voluntarily made.	Held Miranda was properly given; separate voluntariness inquiry also favors admissibility.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (Miranda protections recognized as separate from Due Process coercion analysis)
State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (totality of circumstances test for involuntariness of confessions)
State v. Lazzaro, 76 Ohio St.3d 261 (false oral statements to public officials can constitute obstructing/falsification crimes)
State v. Eley, 77 Ohio St.3d 174 (distinguishes Miranda waiver issues from voluntariness analysis)