State v. Bolen, 2016 Ohio 7821

Background

Police responded to two open-burn complaints on a vacant lot adjacent to 576 Spruce St.; firefighters previously spoke with a man who admitted starting the first fire and entered the house at 576 Spruce.
While standing on the vacant lot investigating the second fire, Officer Bell smelled raw marijuana and observed live marijuana plants in the backyard of 576 Spruce from the lot.
Bell approached the house to conduct a knock-and-talk; after knocking on front and back doors with no answer but lights and movement inside, he knocked on a ground-level side window and saw suspected marijuana remnants and paraphernalia on a kitchen table through the opened blinds. He photographed those items.
Based on (1) the marijuana odor and plants observed from the lot and (2) the items seen through the window, detectives obtained a search warrant; execution produced ~59 lbs. of marijuana, live plants, and other evidence.
Defendant Bolen moved to suppress, alleging unlawful warrantless search of curtilage/window observations, defects in the warrant, and that subsequent warrants/results were tainted; the trial court denied suppression. Bolen pleaded no contest and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bolen)	Held
Whether Officer Bell’s approach to side window and observation inside constituted an unlawful warrantless search	Officer: actions were a lawful knock-and-talk and observation was from a lawful position; plain view applied	Bolen: officer intruded on curtilage/was not lawfully positioned and peeked through blinds after 10 p.m., making the observation unconstitutional	Court: officer’s approach was a lawful, limited curtilage intrusion for knock-and-talk; observation was reasonable and not a Fourth Amendment violation
Whether the items seen through the window satisfied the plain-view doctrine	State: officer lawfully arrived, had access, and incriminating character was immediately apparent	Bolen: officer lacked lawful position/access so plain-view cannot apply	Court: plain-view applies—officer lawfully positioned and items’ incriminating character was immediately apparent
Whether inclusion of window observation in affidavit tainted the subsequent search warrant (fruits doctrine)	State: probable cause had independent basis (plants/odor) irrespective of window observation	Bolen: window observation was unlawful and tainted the affidavit, invalidating the warrant	Court: even if window observation were excluded, the independent observation of plants/odor provided probable cause; warrant valid and not fruit of poisonous tree
Whether evidence from computer searches should be suppressed as derivative or for lack of particularity in warrant	Bolen: computer search derivative of tainted warrant and/or warrant lacked particularity for digital evidence	State: warrant valid; search for computers was proper; defendant’s particularity challenge was not preserved	Court: suppression not warranted—initial warrant valid; Castagnola distinguishable; claim arguably waived and evidence admissible

Key Cases Cited

State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2000) (smell of marijuana by a qualified person can establish probable cause)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review on motions to suppress: trial court factual findings entitled to deference)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (plain-view doctrine elements)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1984) (curtilage is protected area around a home)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (exclusionary rule aims to deter misconduct; good-faith exception limits suppression)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (exclusionary rule applies to states)
State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2015) (warrant particularity for digital evidence; fact-specific application)
State v. Johnson, 141 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 2014) (discussion of exclusionary rule’s purpose and scope)