State v. Connin
2020 Ohio 6867
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Police obtained and executed a search warrant at David Connin’s Delta, Ohio home (warrant issued April 15, 2019; executed April 18, 2019) and seized suspected marijuana, cocaine/tar, drug paraphernalia, scales, baggies, a bill counter, cash, and multiple cell phones.
- Connin was indicted on multiple drug offenses; he pleaded no contest to one count (possession of cocaine) after the trial court denied his suppression motion and the remaining counts were dismissed. He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay prosecution and court-appointed counsel costs.
- The probable-cause affidavit (Detective Jerry Brown) relied on: a neighbor complaint about heavy, brief traffic to Connin’s residence; two earlier Delta PD traffic reports (Jan. 25 and Feb. 9, 2019) linking marijuana found in stopped vehicles to Connin; and an April 12, 2019 stop where an identified arrestee, “Chad,” after Miranda warnings, said he had bought cocaine and vape cartridges from Connin.
- Connin moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause (earlier incidents were too remote/undated and the April 12 statement lacked indicia of reliability). The trial court denied suppression, finding the affidavit sufficient under the totality of the circumstances and alternatively that officers reasonably relied on the warrant in good faith.
- On appeal Connin raised two issues: (1) the affidavit did not establish probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment/Ohio Constitution; and (2) the trial court erred by imposing court-appointed counsel costs without finding his ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Connin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Probable cause for search warrant | Affidavit viewed as a whole provided sufficient, corroborated information (neighbor complaint, two traffic reports, and an identified arrestee’s admission) to support a fair probability that contraband would be found. | Affidavit was deficient: earlier incidents were remote/vague; the April 12 arrestee’s hearsay admission lacked veracity/basis-of-knowledge and thus failed to establish probable cause. | Court affirmed denial of suppression: an identified, self‑inculpatory informant (Chad), combined with the other instances, supplied sufficient indicia of reliability under the totality of the circumstances; magistrate’s probable-cause finding entitled to deference. |
| 2. Imposition of court-appointed counsel costs | Costs were discretionary and properly imposed. | Court imposed counsel costs without an affirmative finding that Connin had (or likely would have) the ability to pay. | Court reversed as to counsel costs: imposition of discretionary costs requires an affirmative finding on ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (adopts good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (identified in Leon for exceptions when suppression remains appropriate)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (magistrate’s probable-cause determination gets deference on review)
- State v. Dibble, 159 Ohio St.3d 322 (Ohio 2020) (applies Leon factors in Ohio; describes when good-faith reliance is barred)
- State v. Williams, 173 Ohio App.3d 119 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (affidavit lacked probable cause where informants’ veracity/basis of knowledge were unshown)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings)