State v. Rodriguez, 2013 Ohio 491

Appellant Jose O. Rodriguez challenges the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion tied to an illegal search and seizure.
On May 3, 2011, federal marshals sought Juan Colon and began a search at 3360 Seymour Avenue, Cleveland.
Marshals entered the residence after allegedly obtaining consent that Ruiz, the homeowner, does not credibly establish due to language barriers.
A marijuana odor was detected in the basement, with marijuana found in a four-foot-tall tires stack and a bag outside the home near a window; cocaine was found in a neighbor’s yard.
Detectives later obtained a search warrant and recovered more contraband; Rodriguez gave statements after Miranda warnings, some of which were not reduced to writing.
The trial court denied suppression; Rodriguez pled no contest to eight charges; the court imposed a three-year term plus five years mandatory postrelease control; on appeal, the court reverses, vacates convictions and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the suppression denial supported by the Fourth Amendment standard?	Rodriguez	State	Yes; suppression sustained and evidence excluded.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (arrest warrant in home requires proper basis to enter the dwelling)
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (third-party residence search requires a search warrant absent exigent circumstances)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to illegally obtained evidence and its derivatives)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (review of suppression is mixed question of law and fact; de novo on legal standards)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (appellate court resolves suppression issues after trial court credibility)
State v. McLemore, 2012-Ohio-521 (2d Dist.) (derivative-evidence suppression rule)