2023 Ohio 3587
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Police responded to a reported sexual assault at a Red Roof Inn and encountered Daryl Smith in the hotel lobby as he tried to re-book a room that was not originally rented in his name.
- Corporal Schwarck accompanied Smith to his hotel room to retrieve his driver’s license; bodycam footage shows Schwarck pushing the door fully open and entering the room even though Smith had begun to close it and a woman (Amber Lopez) attempted to block further entry.
- While inside without the occupants’ consent, Schwarck and other officers searched the room and purse, located suspected narcotics and drug paraphernalia, and then detained Smith, handcuffed him, and searched him multiple times.
- After transport to the jail, officers recovered a small baggy in the jail sally port that tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine; those drugs formed the basis for Smith’s subsequent drug and tampering charges.
- Smith moved to suppress evidence obtained after the hotel-room entry; the trial court denied the motion, tried the joined charges (including later-added charges from a different incident), and a jury convicted Smith on counts tied to the sally-port drugs but acquitted him on charges from the later incident.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the hotel-room entry and ensuing search unconstitutional, suppressed all evidence obtained after that entry as tainted fruit, and remanded for the state to decide whether to retry without the suppressed evidence; other assignments of error were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of officer's entry and motion to suppress | State: Smith left the door open/implicitly consented; evidence inside was in plain view | Smith: Officer pushed door open, entered without consent or warrant; search violated Fourth Amendment and tainted downstream evidence | Entry was unlawful; suppression warranted for all evidence obtained after Schwarck entered the room; first assignment sustained |
| Joinder / timeliness of superseding indictment and motion to sever | State: Joinder is favored; combined trial permissible under Crim.R. 8 | Smith: Late superseding indictment (19 days before trial) prejudiced defense and warranted severance or continuance | Court noted concern but because Smith was acquitted on the joined (later) charges, the issue is moot on appeal |
| Juror impartiality (challenge for cause) | State: No disqualifying bias shown | Smith: Prospective juror’s close friend dated a police witness and should be struck for cause | Moot (court did not reach merits after suppression ruling) |
| Sufficiency and manifest-weight of the evidence (Crim.R. 29) | State: Evidence (including sally-port recovery) supported convictions | Smith: Convictions rested on evidence tainted by illegal search and were insufficient | Moot after suppression ruling; appellate court reversed on Fourth Amendment grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent to search must be voluntary and cannot be found where the occupant reasonably believes police have a warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (consent operates as a waiver of Fourth Amendment protections when given freely and voluntarily)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search is inadmissible unless the connection to the illegality is sufficiently attenuated)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (further explication of attenuation and the ‘‘fruit of the poisonous tree’’ doctrine)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio law favors joinder; severance requires demonstration of prejudice)
- State v. Coley, 93 Ohio St.3d 253 (evidence at a combined trial must be simple and direct or otherwise admissible in separate trials to defeat a severance claim)