State v. Korb
2014 Ohio 4543
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Nov. 12, 2012, Painesville police stopped a vehicle for a headlight out and expired tags; Ashley Korb was the front-seat passenger. The driver received a citation and the vehicle was to be towed. Occupants were ordered out of the car.
- Officer Rastall questioned Korb briefly about a theft; no arrest was made and LEADS showed no warrants. Officer Baldrey then asked Korb for consent to search her purse; she agreed and stood by while he searched.
- During the search of the purse (and the wallet inside it), officers found identification cards belonging to someone else; those cards connected Korb to another theft and she was arrested.
- Korb moved to suppress evidence from the search; the trial court denied the motion. She later pleaded no contest to two counts and appealed the suppression ruling.
- Appellate issues: (1) whether Korb’s consent to search was voluntary; (2) whether the search exceeded the scope of consent by opening a wallet within the purse; (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the scope argument at the suppression hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Korb) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Korb’s consent to search her purse voluntary? | Consent was freely and voluntarily given during a routine traffic stop; Korb was cooperative and not in custody. | Consent was not freely given because she was ordered out of an impounded vehicle and not told she could refuse. | Consent was voluntary; totality of circumstances supports voluntariness. |
| Did consent to search the purse include authority to search the wallet inside? | A reasonable person would expect containers inside the purse to be searchable; no explicit limitation was given. | Searching the wallet exceeded the scope of consent. | Scope included the wallet; officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to argue the wallet-scope issue at suppression? | N/A (State argues no ineffective assistance where suppression motion lacked merit). | Counsel ineffective for not pressing container/scope argument. | No ineffective assistance; counsel not deficient for failing to raise a meritless issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent is judged from totality of circumstances)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness; consent to search area may include containers)
- State v. Posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 1988) (state bears burden to prove consent was freely and voluntarily given)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1996) (officers not always required to inform detainees they are free to go for consent to be voluntary)
- State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 2006) (scope of consent judged by what a reasonable person would understand)
- State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 2001) (counsel not deficient for failing to raise meritless issues)
- State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (Ohio 2006) (traffic stop detainees not automatically in custody for Miranda purposes)