State v. Roberson
2012 Ohio 5106
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Roberson convicted of Receiving Stolen Property; suppression motion denied; appeal filed from trial court’s ruling.
- Officers secured the apartment after victim allowed entry; Roberson was in the bathroom shower while bags sat in the living room.
- A suitcase was searched by Hartwell; a Colt .380 firearm, allegedly stolen, was found; gun later verified as stolen.
- Roberson admitted ownership of the gun after Miranda warnings; trial court admitted the gun at issue; improper warrantless search contested on appeal.
- Court reverses, holds no exigent circumstances justified warrantless suitcase search; remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exigent circumstances justified warrantless suitcase search. | Roberson contends no exigent circumstances. | State argues exigent circumstances existed to protect officer safety. | Exigency not proved; suppression affirmed error; search unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (appellate review of suppression findings; evidentiary standard)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (burden on state to prove Fourth Amendment exigency)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) ( Fourth Amendment search generally requires a warrant unless an exception applies)