State v. Bembry (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 8114
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Police conducted two controlled buys implicating Harsimran Singh and obtained a search warrant for his apartment where he lived with Sherri Bembry.
- Seven officers executed the warrant at 8:30 a.m.; officers knocked and announced, but did not state their purpose, and then forcibly entered after a short delay.
- The search yielded heroin and drug paraphernalia, a stolen .38 pistol, and an AK-47; both defendants were indicted on drug- and weapons-related charges.
- Bembry and Singh moved to suppress all evidence, arguing the entry violated the knock-and-announce statute (R.C. 2935.12) and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution.
- The trial court granted suppression; the court of appeals reversed relying on Hudson v. Michigan and held suppression is not the proper remedy for knock-and-announce violations when a valid warrant exists.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Article I, Section 14 requires suppression for knock-and-announce violations after a warrant issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression is the proper remedy under Article I, §14 for a knock-and-announce violation when police execute a valid warrant | Bembry/Singh: Article I, §14 can provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment; prior Ohio decisions and some state courts support suppression | State: Hudson controls; knock-and-announce protects different interests than warrant rule and suppression won’t deter violations; R.C. 2935.12 provides no suppression remedy | Court held suppression is not the appropriate remedy under Article I, §14 once a warrant has issued |
| Whether Ohio should interpret Article I, §14 differently from the Fourth Amendment on this point | Bembry/Singh: Ohio precedents expanding §14 merit broader remedy; compare Brown/Jones line of cases and other states’ law | State: Those cases are distinguishable (lack of warrant) and other-state decisions are not persuasive; harmonize with federal law absent compelling reasons | Court harmonized Ohio §14 with federal Fourth Amendment precedent (Hudson) on remedies for knock-and-announce violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (holding suppression inappropriate for knock-and-announce violations when a valid warrant exists)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (incorporation of exclusionary rule to states)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (origin of federal exclusionary rule)
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (recognizing knock-and-announce as part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (exclusionary rule limited by deterrence/social-cost analysis)
- State v. Oliver, 112 Ohio St.3d 447 (2007) (remanded for consideration of Hudson on knock-and-announce suppression)
- State v. Mapp, 170 Ohio St. 427 (Ohio decision discussed in historical treatment of exclusionary rule)