State v. Penwell, 170 N.E.3d 52

On Oct. 11, 2017 Penwell was treated at Springfield Regional Medical Center after a suspected opiate overdose; medical staff administered multiple doses of naloxone (Narcan) and he responded.
Officers Freeman and Sanders (already on site) approached Penwell in an emergency-department corridor, spoke with him, and asked for permission to search his person; Penwell consented and no Miranda warnings were given.
Officer Freeman recovered two capsules from a pants pocket; chemical analysis identified 0.10 grams of carfentanil (a Schedule II substance) in one capsule.
A Clark County grand jury indicted Penwell (aggravated possession); he moved to suppress the evidence and statements obtained at the hospital; the trial court denied the motion.
Penwell pleaded no-contest pursuant to a plea agreement but was later sentenced to seven months due to an outstanding warrant; he appealed the denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the officers’ contact a consensual encounter or an investigatory detention?	Contact was consensual; officers merely approached and asked questions.	Encounter was nonconsensual because it occurred in a nonpublic hospital corridor and Penwell could not freely leave.	Encounter was consensual: corridor less confining than a private room; officers’ conduct did not convey that compliance was required.
Was Penwell’s consent to the search voluntary?	Consent was voluntary: Penwell was lucid, responsive, and cooperated when asked.	Consent was involuntary because Penwell had been unconscious, received Narcan, and was "sleepy/intoxicated," undermining lucidity.	Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances; trial court’s credibility findings supported voluntariness.
If detention, did officers have reasonable suspicion to detain/search?	N/A	N/A — court considered the alternative.	Even if detention, officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion (information that Penwell had overdosed on an opiate and responded to Narcan).

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes stop-and-frisk and reasonable-suspicion standard)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent is a recognized exception to warrant requirement; voluntariness standard)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; limited exceptions apply)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (tests whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline police requests)
Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (factors distinguishing consensual encounters from investigatory detentions)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (appellate standard of review for suppression rulings)