State v. Myer, 2017 Ohio 1046

At ~1:35 a.m. on Nov. 14, 2015, Sgt. David Briggs stopped Jamie Myer for a traffic violation after observing her vehicle cross the centerline. Four officers were present on scene.
Myer’s passenger consented to a search; officers found a syringe and detained him. Briggs then questioned Myer about narcotics; she initially denied having drugs.
Briggs warned Myer about "tampering with evidence" and said if she voluntarily turned over evidence he would not pursue tampering charges; after this, Myer produced heroin from her person and consented to searches of a bottle and her purse; officers later searched the vehicle and her phone after written consent.
Myer was Mirandized at the scene and again at the sheriff’s office; she signed a Miranda waiver and a written consent to search her phone.
Myer moved to suppress; the trial court granted the motion, finding her consent involuntary/coerced. The State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Myer’s consent to search was voluntary	Briggs’ request and statements did not render consent involuntary; Myer voluntarily gave drugs and consent	Consent was coerced by threat of tampering charge, presence of multiple officers, late hour, and misleading explanation of law	Consent was not voluntary; suppression affirmed

Burnside v. State, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (appellate review of suppression: mixed question of law and fact)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (consent searches permissible when voluntary)
State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (consent to search avoids Fourth Amendment violation)
State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (elements of tampering with evidence)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (trial court credibility findings in suppression hearings entitled to deference)