State v. Baro
2013 Ohio 5139
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Baro appeals a Franklin County Court of Common Pleas judgment following a no contest plea to two counts of trademark counterfeiting and a term of community control.
- Investigator Disbennett flagged counterfeit merchandise at Eastland Flea Market; a canvass occurred Sept 18, 2011, revealing widespread counterfeit displays.
- Detectives sought a single search warrant for the entire Eastland Flea Market after a judge indicated a sole warrant could cover the whole building.
- Warrant issued Oct 6, 2011, authorizing a search of the entire market; Oct 7, 2011, detectives executed the search.
- Baro supervised four booths during the search; items and trademarked merchandise were seized; motion to suppress filed June 21, 2012, denied Sept 27, 2012; no contest plea entered Oct 17, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant described the place to be searched with sufficient particularity | Baro argues the warrant lacked particularity targeting only his booths | Baro contends the warrant authorized a broad search of the entire structure | Warrant satisfied particularity; market is a single structure, not multi-unit |
| Whether the good-faith exception applies to suppress the evidence | Baro argues the warrant was invalid and officers acted unreasonably | State argues good faith should apply given magistrate's determination | Good-faith exception applies; suppression not warranted if warrant valid or reliance was reasonable |
| Whether the plain-view exception played a role in the seizure | Baro contends evidence was not plainly viewed or inadvertently discovered | State suggests some seized items could have been plain view | Record unclear on plain view for all items, but warrant validity governs suppression analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (objective good faith in police reliance on warrants)
- Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984) (limits of magistrate's role in warrant form validity)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable-cause standard for warrants)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (probable-cause and particularity in searches)
- United States v. Votteller, 544 F.2d 1355 (6th Cir.1976) (multi-unit structure search warrant particularity)
- State v. Wilmoth, 22 Ohio St.3d 251 (1986) (exclusionary rule scope in Ohio)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) (coextensive rights under Ohio and U.S. Constitutions)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (good-faith exception framework in Ohio)
- State v. Ford, 2008-Ohio-4373 ((Ohio Ct. App.)) ( Ohio approach to search and seizure)