2014 Ohio 2992
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Oct. 16, 2012 an anonymous caller reported three men (including "Jon") cooking meth at 1540 Lake Road and one possibly waving a gun; caller identified the specific house.
- Deputies (Hawks, Graham, Boring, Walker) parked on Lake Road, approached the property, and entered areas open to the public (driveway, front approach).
- As Hawks walked the driveway he smelled solvents consistent with ether; through a gap under tarps in the carport he observed Schorr and Cosner at a table with jars, tubing, and bottles indicative of an active meth cook.
- Deputies detained Schorr and Cosner, evacuated occupants upstairs (girlfriend Tiffany Crosby and three children), and conducted a protective sweep of upstairs; lower areas were not initially entered due to hazardous conditions until HazMat arrived.
- Crosby later signed a consent-to-search form about two hours into the response; deputies searched and neutralized hazardous materials. Schorr was indicted for illegal manufacture of drugs and possession/assembly of chemicals, moved to suppress, pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to three years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Schorr) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of officers entering driveway/curtilage | Officers may approach driveway/front areas open to public; smell of solvent corroborated anonymous tip and supported observation of meth lab | Entry onto driveway/yard (and Walker's movement off driveway) was an unconstitutional trespass into curtilage | Officers were lawfully on driveway/approach; Walker’s position was not within curtilage (visible, unenclosed, routine yard) |
| Protective sweep and entry into house | Protective sweep was justified: (1) concern for a possibly armed third person reported by caller and (2) exigency from an active meth lab (R.C. ground and safety risk) | Entry and sweep were warrantless and unreasonable under Fourth Amendment | Protective sweep of upper house lawful under Buie; exigent circumstances from active meth lab justified initial entry |
| Voluntariness of Crosby's consent to search | Crosby voluntarily consented under totality of circumstances; officers explained hazards and read form; she cooperated | Crosby was coerced (threatened with arrest), so consent was not voluntary | Court found state proved voluntariness by clear and convincing evidence; Crosby’s consent valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes expectation of privacy two-part test)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing and expectation of privacy principles)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (curtilage is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (factors to determine extent of curtilage)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (permissible scope of protective sweep)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent invalid if mere acquiescence to claim of lawful authority)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable-discovery doctrine)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party consent to search)