2022 Ohio 3693
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Detective Behymer obtained a buccal-swab warrant after DNA from cigarette butts in a stolen vehicle matched Bedsole, then sought a second warrant for real-time GPS/cell-site data tied to phone number 513-496-8322. The affidavit reused facts from the buccal-swab affidavit but did not identify the source who told police the phone number was Bedsole’s.
- AT&T historical and real-time location data from the warrant placed the phone (and a matching vehicle) in Cincinnati; officers followed the vehicle into Warren County, learned the car was stolen, and during the resulting stop an officer observed an object tossed from the passenger window that proved to be a handgun.
- Bedsole moved to suppress the cell-phone-location warrant, arguing the affidavit failed to connect the number to him and failed to establish the informant’s veracity/basis of knowledge. The trial court denied suppression; Bedsole pled no contest to the charges in that case.
- Separately, while jailed, Bedsole was investigated after officers suspected drugs in nearby cells; body scans and strip searches uncovered two drug-filled containers—one recovered from between his buttocks, another which fell from his gown. Officers also observed him allegedly push a container back into his rectum as it began to emerge.
- Bedsole was tried in a bench trial on tampering and drug-possession counts; the trial court found the officers credible and convicted Bedsole of tampering with evidence and drug offenses. He appealed both the suppression ruling and the tampering conviction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bedsole's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cell‑phone GPS/location-data warrant affidavit established probable cause despite not naming the source of the phone number | Affidavit showed probable cause that Bedsole committed vehicle thefts and that location data for the specified phone would assist in locating him; source identity not required for probable cause under totality of circumstances | Affidavit failed to link the phone number to Bedsole and omitted veracity/basis-of-knowledge for the informant, so warrant was not supported by probable cause | Warrant affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause; failure to identify source did not defeat probable cause; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether tampering-with-evidence conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against manifest weight | Officer testimony and physical evidence showed Bedsole concealed drugs in a location where searches were likely and reinserted a container as it emerged, demonstrating purpose to impair evidence availability | Bedsole said he merely kept drugs between his buttocks for "safekeeping" (possibly before any investigation), so state did not prove intent to impede an investigation | Viewing evidence in favor of the prosecution, the court credited officers’ testimony that Bedsole reinstered a container and knew searches were likely in jail; conviction was supported and not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule requires sufficiently deliberate or culpable police misconduct to justify exclusion)
- State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339 (Ohio 2014) (defines tampering with evidence, requires purpose to impair and that an investigation be existing or likely at time of act)
- State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 (Ohio 2018) (Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution affords the same protection as the Fourth Amendment in felony cases)