State v. Conway
2012 Ohio 590
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Conway was indicted for drug trafficking, drug possession, possession of criminal tools, having a weapon while under disability, and tampering with evidence, with firearm, schoolyard, and forfeiture specifications.
- Conway moved to suppress the search of his Hosmer Avenue home, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and was overly broad.
- Detectives relied on information from a confidential reliable informant who arranged two controlled heroin purchases from Conway, leading to surveillance and probable cause for a warrant.
- SWAT and narcotics detectives executed the warrant; Conway admitted flushing heroin and officers found 53.49 grams in a freezer, with further contention over toilet and pipe damage during the search.
- Conway claimed no prior notice of entry and challenged the seizure of two televisions, a PlayStation, and $700 as fruits of crime.
- The trial court denied suppression; Conway pled no contest and received a four-year sentence, while the appellate court partly reversed on forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant lacked probable cause and was overly broad | Conway—probable cause insufficient; warrant exploratory | Conway—affidavit fails to show nexus; invalid/search too general | Probable cause and reasonable specificity found |
| Whether the execution of the warrant was unreasonable | Conway—entry methods violated Fourth Amendment | Conway—damage reasonable to recover flushed drugs | Execution not unreasonable |
| Whether seizure and forfeiture of televisions and PlayStation were properly supported by probable cause | State—assets were proceeds or fruits of crime | Conway—no clear link to drug money; forfeiture improper | Forfeiture of items improper; sustain as to appellate remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (probable-cause standard; deference to magistrate)
- State v. Benner, 40 Ohio St.3d 301 (Ohio 1988) (warrant specificity and fruits of the crime)
- State v. Dalpiaz, 151 Ohio App.3d 257 (11th Dist. 2002) (scope of items seizable under warrant; breadth permissible)
- Dayton Police Dept. v. Byrd, 189 Ohio App.3d 461 (2d Dist. 2010) (proceeds; burden to show connection to offense)
- State v. Ali, 119 Ohio App.3d 766 (Ohio App.3d 1997) (burden to show money is proceeds of crime)