State v. Muncy, 2017 Ohio 121

Dayton police responded to complaints about drug sales at a duplex where David Muncy lived with his elderly mother; officers knocked and were let into the home after speaking with the mother.
Officers observed a notebook on a desk that appeared to be a drug ledger and asked to search; Muncy consented to a search of the desk; most drawers were unlocked but one was locked.
When officers discovered the locked drawer, they repeatedly asked Muncy for the key; Muncy initially denied having a key but after several repeated requests produced one and the locked drawer was opened, revealing contraband.
Officer Riegel testified he made no threats or promises; Riegel did repeatedly say things like “I believe you have drugs in there,” and asked several times for the key over about ten minutes.
The trial court suppressed the evidence from the locked drawer, finding Muncy did not voluntarily consent to turn over the key given his concerns for his elderly mother and the officers’ repeated demands; it also suppressed subsequent statements as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The State appealed, arguing the consent to search (and to provide the key) was voluntary and therefore the search and statements should not have been suppressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Muncy voluntarily consented to search the locked desk drawer or to surrender the key	Consent to search the desk included the locked drawer and Muncy voluntarily gave the key; officer made no threats or promises	Consent to turn over the key was involuntary given repeated officer demands, Muncy’s initial denials, and concern for his elderly mother	Court held consent to hand over the key was involuntary; search of locked drawer suppressed
Whether post-search statements were admissible or fruit of the poisonous tree	Statements were independent and admissible if search was lawful	Statements were tainted by the unlawful search and therefore inadmissible	Court held statements were fruit of the poisonous tree and suppressed

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to search must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
State v. Ingram, 82 Ohio App.3d 341 (1992) (State bears burden to prove consent was not product of duress or coercion)
State v. DeCaminada, 148 Ohio App.3d 213 (2002) (repeated officer requests can render acquiescence involuntary; refusal then later compliance supports coercion finding)
State v. Barker, 53 Ohio St.2d 135 (1978) (knowledge of right to refuse consent is a relevant factor in voluntariness analysis)