History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. McLemore
968 N.E.2d 612
Ohio Ct. App.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Domestic dispute between Hisle and McLemore; police responded to Woodmore Drive residence to locate McLemore; McLemore came out and was arrested outside; officers conducted a protective sweep of the interior without evidence of others present; they observed an open box of shotgun shells and a missing firearm from a gun cabinet; after being Mirandized, McLemore consented to a search following a conversation with his mother; a firearm was found under a cushion during the search; trial court suppressed all evidence arguing unlawful warrantless entry and search; the State appealed the suppression ruling.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the protective sweep was valid under Buie. State argues Buie allows warrantless protective sweep when there is danger. McLemore contends no articulable basis showed others inside posing danger. Protective sweep not supported by articulable suspicion; unlawful.
Whether the gun and statements were tainted by the prior illegality and the admissibility of consented search. Consent to search post-arrest could validate subsequent search. Consent tainted by illegality; evidence should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Second assignment sustained; suppression reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Key Cases Cited

  • Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep requires articulable suspicion to finds others inside a residence)
  • Sharpe, 174 Ohio App.3d 498 (2008) (protective sweep requires articulable facts showing danger; mere suspicion is insufficient)
  • Minced v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (exigent circumstances justify warrantless entry when life or property at risk)
  • State v. Applegate, 68 Ohio St.3d 348 (1994) (emergency/exigent circumstances and protections relevant to warrantless entry)
  • State v. Sladeck, 132 Ohio App.3d 86 (1998) (protective sweep limitations in Ohio appellate context)
  • Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (derivative-evidence rule applicability to taint from illegal search)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. McLemore
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 10, 2012
Citation: 968 N.E.2d 612
Docket Number: 24804
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.