State v. Winston
2012 Ohio 4743
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- DMHA Police Task Force received a report of drug activity at 45 Benning Place.
- Officers initiated a knock-and-advise at the apartment; McKnight attempted to flee from the back door.
- Inside, officers smelled burnt marijuana; marijuana was observed on a coffee table; a handgun and baggie of marijuana were found in a front closet.
- A second gun, cocaine, crack cocaine, and additional marijuana were located during a protective sweep.
- Defendant was read his rights, waived them, and spoke to police; he was indicted for weapons under disability, crack cocaine, cocaine, and marijuana offenses. Suppression motion denied.
- Defendant pled no contest to all four counts; trial court sentenced to community control; appellate review followed on suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Winston have standing as an overnight guest to challenge the search? | Winston was not a resident or overnight guest per testimony; no standing. | Undisputed overnight guest status gave him a reasonable expectation of privacy. | Overnight-guest standing established; suppression affirmed; remand for entry legality. |
| Is the warrantless entry/search valid when standing is lacking and there is no clear exception? | Court should address entry/search legality after ruling on standing. | Without standing, the entry/search is presumptively illegal. | Remand to address entry/search legality; second assignment overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney v. State, 83 Ohio St.3d 85 (1998) (standing required for Fourth Amendment challenge)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest status creates privacy rights)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (legitimate expectation of privacy requires privacy interest)
- State v. Davis, 80 Ohio App.3d 277 (1997) (standing and privacy expectations examined on suppression)