State v. Roberts, 2014 Ohio 4126

Police responded to a 9-1-1 call from defendant Roberts’ daughter reporting Roberts had fired a gun at her and her mother, Synthia Smith.
Officers arrested Roberts outside the home; Sergeant Marcum entered the house with Ms. Smith’s permission and smelled gunpowder and observed a shell casing and a hole in the wall.
Ms. Smith led Sergeant Marcum to a master-bedroom closet, opened it, and the officer searched it for firearms.
Sergeant Marcum found multiple firearms and a cigar box in the closet; the cigar box later tested positive for trace cocaine, leading to a charge of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance against Roberts.
Roberts moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless search, arguing (1) Ms. Smith’s consent was involuntary/invalid and (2) the consent did not extend to containers (the cigar box); the trial court denied the motion; Roberts pleaded no contest and appealed.

Issue	Roberts' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of third‑party consent to search the home	Smith’s consent was involuntary or she lacked authority (estranged partner) so consent invalid	Smith voluntarily permitted officer into house and to search; she had common authority and was not in custody	Consent was voluntary and supported by competent, credible evidence; suppression denied
Scope of consent—whether consent to search closet included containers	Even if closet search permitted, the cigar box was a private container beyond scope	Scope measured objectively; consent to search for firearms reasonably includes containers that could hold a gun	A reasonable person would understand consent to search for guns in closet to include opening a cigar box that could hold a handgun
Applicability of Georgia v. Randolph (co‑occupant refusal)	Randolph prevents search because Roberts was present and did not consent	Randolph is inapplicable because Roberts was not physically present and did not object when Smith consented	Randolph not applicable; no evidence Roberts was physically present or objected
Plain view alternative	If consent invalid, plain view would not justify opening the cigar box	Scope of consent already included the box, obviating need to reach plain view; alternatively plain view could be considered	Court did not need to rely on plain view because valid consent covered opening the cigar box

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (establishes mixed question standard on suppression: trial court finds facts; appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (scope and voluntariness of consent assessed under totality of circumstances and objective standard)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (searches without warrant are presumptively unreasonable)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent defined by the expressed object; containers that could hold object of search may be opened)
United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (consent by one with common authority is valid against absent co‑occupant)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged from totality of the circumstances)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (a physically present occupant’s express refusal defeats a fellow occupant’s consent)
State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (knowledge of right to refuse is a factor but not required to prove voluntariness)