State v. Prater, 2012 Ohio 5105

Prater (passenger) and Slone were stopped for a traffic violation; marijuana was found under both front seats after a search following consent.
The vehicle was registered to Prater’s mother, not Slone, and Bennett perceived Slone as the driver.
Bennett indicated Slone was “free to go” before requesting consent to search.
Prater testified the car was his and that he did not consent, while Slone’s consent was claimed by officers.
The trial court found Slone validly consented, and the search was lawful, but the record supported by video was inconclusive on consent realism.
Prater pleaded no contest to marijuana possession, and the court sentenced him pending appeal; then the suppression order was appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there valid consent to search the vehicle?	Slone’s consent was not clearly given; video shows equivocal conduct.	Slone had apparent authority to consent as driver with control over the vehicle.	Yes; consent valid under apparent authority; suppression denied.
Was Slone’s consent voluntary or tainted by an unlawful detention?	Continued detention after the stop failed to justify search; consent tainted.	Consent occurred during valid processing of the stop.	Consent tainted by unlawful detention; suppression of evidence appropriate.

State v. Robinette, State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) (unlawful detention affects voluntariness of consent; totality-of-circumstances test)
State v. Ferrante, Ferrante, 196 Ohio App.3d 113 (2011) (stop’s purpose finished; subsequent search requires reasonable suspicion for continued detention)
United States v. Matlock, Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party common authority can justify search consent)
United States v. Brickley, Brickley, 916 F.2d 713 (1990) (driver’s consent valid against co-occupant owner under Matlock framework)
Brendlin v. California, Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passenger has standing to challenge seizure and search)