State v. McLemore
968 N.E.2d 612
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- 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)
