State v. Hawks, 2019 Ohio 2350

Police responded to a complaint that Hawks was selling drugs from 1782 Tuttle Ave., a house owned by James Sisco; Sisco was unavailable.
Officers approached Dana Ray, who was grilling outside and told them Hawks lived there; Ray signed a consent-to-search form.
Officers entered through a side door, were directed upstairs, and encountered a doorway partially covered by a sheet that led to Hawks’ rented, private upstairs bedroom.
Officer Johnson entered the bedroom without announcing, found Hawks (naked) and a female, and observed a baggie he believed was meth on a dresser; Hawks was arrested and a meth pipe found on search.
At suppression, trial court found Ray was a co-inhabitant but failed to show mutual use/joint control of Hawks’ private bedroom and that officers made no inquiry into Ray’s authority; court suppressed evidence as product of unlawful entry.
The State appealed, arguing Ray had actual or apparent authority to consent to entry and that officers acted in good faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a co-inhabitant (Ray) had actual authority to consent to entry/search of the house, including upstairs areas	Ray lived at the residence and thus had actual authority to permit entry and search of common areas	Ray lacked authority over Hawks’ rented upstairs bedroom, which was private	Ray had actual authority to permit entry into common areas, but not actual authority to permit a search of Hawks’ private upstairs bedroom
Whether officers reasonably could rely on Ray’s apparent authority / acted in good faith to enter the upstairs bedroom	Ray’s presence (grilling) and statement he lived there made his authority objectively reasonable; no ambiguity requiring further inquiry	Curtains/partition and testimony showed upstairs was privately occupied by Hawks; officers should have asked questions before proceeding	No apparent authority; circumstances (sheet/partition, multiple occupants, rent arrangement) required further inquiry — officers lacked reasonable basis to proceed and good-faith argument fails

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent valid where co-occupant has common authority over the area)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (warrantless search valid if officers reasonably rely on third party’s apparent authority; reasonableness measured objectively)
United States v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2005) (police cannot rely on apparent authority when circumstances make authority ambiguous without further inquiry)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (1992) (plain-view doctrine limitations; evidence must be lawfully observed)
State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (1995) (appellate review of suppression accepts trial court’s factual findings but reviews legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Dennis, 182 Ohio App.3d 674 (2009) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule mainly applies to defective warrants)