State v. Arnold, Jr.
2017 Ohio 559
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victor Arnold, Jr. was indicted on drug and weapons charges; he pleaded no contest to possession of heroin and having weapons while under disability and was sentenced to consecutive three-year terms (total six years). Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized under a July 31, 2015 search warrant for 512 E. Rose St.
- Detective Mitchell’s 30‑paragraph affidavit relied on: prior convictions, multiple confidential/anonymous tips (2013–2015) identifying "Money"/Arnold as selling drugs at 512 E. Rose, and two confidential sources (one with a documented history of reliability) who placed Arnold on Rose/Clay Streets and provided phone numbers.
- Police surveillance (July 21 and July 27, 2015) recorded Arnold approaching vehicles via the alley behind 512 E. Rose, briefly placing his hand into vehicle windows, then walking back toward the residence; vehicles left immediately afterward.
- Additional corroborating facts: housing records and OHLEC listing 512 E. Rose as Arnold’s address, vehicles linked to Tonya Arnold (resident), and past controlled buys (2013) tying Arnold to narcotics transactions.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion, finding the magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause. The appellate court affirmed, concluding the affidavit’s timely corroboration and informant reliability supported a fair probability that drugs were at the residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search 512 E. Rose St. | Affidavit provided cumulative, corroborated information (reliable CS, surveillance matching CS descriptions, prior convictions) supporting fair probability of drugs at the address. | Affidavit relied on stale background facts, uncorroborated/anonymous tips, and innocent conduct; informant reliability was insufficient to establish probable cause. | Probable cause satisfied: totality of affidavit, recent surveillance corroboration, and reliable CS supported fair probability contraband was at the residence; warrant upheld. |
| Whether anonymous tips and older convictions rendered affidavit stale or unreliable | State: tips were corroborated by independent investigation and recent surveillance; older convictions provided background and pattern supporting suspicion. | Arnold: tips were generic, unnamed, and stale; past convictions and distant transactions don’t show current contraband at the home. | Staleness objection rejected: surveillance in July 2015 and housing records provided timely corroboration; background/criminal history were proper contextual factors. |
| Reliability of confidential informants (CI/CS) in affidavit | One CS (#1289) had prior reliable, independently verified cooperation; other CIs provided corroborating details; officers performed independent checks (surveillance, phone records). | CIs were first‑time or financially motivated sources; some tips lacked dates or personal observation and thus had limited reliability. | Court credited the mix of informant reliability and police corroboration; informant credibility and basis of knowledge evaluated under Gates totality test. |
| Application of good‑faith exception if warrant defective | State alternatively: officers executed warrant in objectively reasonable reliance on judicially issued warrant. | Arnold argued warrant was unsupported so exclusion required. | Court did not need to apply good faith because it found probable cause; but noted good‑faith argument as secondary. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (reviewing court must ensure magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; consider veracity and basis of knowledge of hearsay sources)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause determined from totality of circumstances; informant veracity and basis of knowledge are relevant and intertwined)
- State v. McClain, 41 N.E.3d 871 (Ohio App. 2015) (discussing Crim.R. 41 and standards for warrants and hearsay in affidavits)
- State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170 (Ohio 1980) (affidavit supporting search warrant has presumption of validity)
- State v. Jones, 72 Ohio App.3d 522 (Ohio App. 1991) (staleness is assessed by whether facts justify belief contraband remains at premises)
- Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1932) (proof must be closely related in time to issuing of warrant; staleness evaluated case-by-case)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 1999) (recognizes categories of informants and treatment of anonymous/ confidential tips)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2004) (discusses informant categories and reliability considerations)