State v. Miller, 2012 Ohio 1901

Miller, passenger in a stopped vehicle, was detained after the driver’s license issue and a claim the vehicle contained marijuana.
Trooper Seabolt conducted a pat-down for weapons after Miller exited the vehicle and asked about items in his pockets.
Miller produced cigarettes, a cell phone, and a bag containing Diazepam; a subsequent arrest led to marijuana found during a search incident to arrest.
The January 5, 2010 charging information charged Miller with possession of marijuana and possession of drugs.
Miller moved to suppress the evidence, arguing no lawful basis for detention or consent to search.
The trial court suppressed the evidence after finding no valid consent and questioning the detainment and search process, and the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the search of Miller was lawful as a consent search or under probable cause.	State argues consent or probable cause justified the search	Miller contends there was no voluntary consent and detention/search were unlawful	Reversed; court found Miller voluntarily consented and suppression reversed

United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (U.S. (2002)) (consent searches valid when voluntary; no need to inform rights to refuse)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. (1973)) (consent search valid if voluntary under totality of circumstances)
State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio (1990)) (Ohio standard for consent to search; application of voluntariness)
United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. (1976)) (consent to search considered under totality of circumstances)
State v. Posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio (1988)) (defining clear and convincing evidence standard for consent)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (U.S. (2009)) (traffic stops are dangerous; officers may control during stop)