2020 Ohio 4119
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Daniel J. Campbell was granted judicial release and placed on community control; he signed a community-control form that included broad consent language allowing searches "at any time without a warrant."
- Probation Officer Kelsey Conn conducted an unannounced "home check" while preparing to reduce Campbell's supervision and reassign his case; Campbell had been compliant and there was no reported suspicion of wrongdoing.
- During the check officers found a cell phone; Conn inspected it, located images she believed were child pornography, and this information formed the basis for subsequent search warrants and criminal charges.
- Campbell moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the probation search, arguing the search lacked the statutory "reasonable grounds" and required notice under R.C. 2951.02; the trial court denied suppression, finding valid consent and good-faith reliance on the community-control term.
- Campbell pleaded no contest to the charges, was sentenced, and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
- The Fifth District reversed, holding the search violated R.C. 2951.02 because the court-ordered community-control term omitted the statute's required notice and the officers lacked reasonable grounds; the good-faith exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless, unannounced probation search was lawful | State: Campbell waived Fourth Amendment protections by consenting in his community-control form; search was reasonable | Campbell: Statute (R.C. 2951.02) requires "reasonable grounds" and written notice; random searches without cause are unauthorized | Court: Search violated R.C. 2951.02 because no reasonable grounds and no required written notice were shown |
| Whether a trial court may impose a community-control term authorizing suspicionless/random searches | State: Such conditions can be imposed and constitutionally reasonable under precedent | Campbell: Court’s sentencing discretion is limited by R.C. 2951.02 which prohibits random searches absent reasonable grounds and notice | Court: Imposing a term authorizing searches "at any time without a warrant" exceeds sentencing authority under R.C. 2951.02 |
| Whether the good-faith exception saves the evidence | State: Officer reasonably relied on court-ordered term and department practice | Campbell: Officer lacked objective basis to believe statute/term authorized suspicionless searches | Court: Good-faith exception inapplicable; record lacks objective basis for reasonable reliance |
| Remedy for statutory violation (suppression) | State: Evidence should be admissible under constitutional consent/precedent | Campbell: Evidence should be suppressed because search violated controlling statute | Court: Suppressible—reversed trial court denial of motion to suppress and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (probation regulation authorizing warrantless home searches upheld under special-needs analysis)
- State v. Benton, 82 Ohio St.3d 316 (Ohio Supreme Court: parole condition consenting to warrantless searches upheld absent statutory limitation)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probation condition plus reasonable suspicion satisfies Fourth Amendment)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (Fourth Amendment does not prohibit suspicionless searches of parolees under statute)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (scope of exclusionary rule and when deterrence justifies suppression)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to evidence from unconstitutional searches)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- State v. Jones, 88 Ohio St.3d 430 (discussion of exclusionary rule deterrence and standards)