2016 Ohio 4718
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Jeremy Corwin was charged in a multi-count indictment arising from a long‑running interstate hydroponic marijuana trafficking enterprise; he pled no contest to all counts and was sentenced to a total of nine years’ imprisonment.
- The investigation (Mar–Nov 2013) used DEA/Task Force surveillance and two confidential informants (CI 585, CI 586); CI 585 supplied detailed information tying Corwin to large loads (100–300 lbs) and specific residences and vehicles.
- Detective Dan Schweitzer prepared search‑warrant affidavits (including for Corwin’s Pittsfield Street residence) based on CI reports, surveillance, vehicle registrations, spot checks, and undercover purchases; warrants were executed Nov. 25, 2013.
- Corwin moved to suppress evidence seized from Pittsfield Street and sought a Franks hearing, asserting false or omitted statements in the warrant affidavit (notably that CI 585 saw 200 lbs of marijuana there and omission of the date of that observation).
- The trial court denied a Franks hearing and the suppression motion; it found the affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause and alternatively applied the Leon good‑faith exception. Corwin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Corwin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Franks hearing was required (alleged false statements/omissions in affidavit) | Affidavit was corroborated and affiant did not knowingly or recklessly include falsehoods; no substantial preliminary showing met | CI’s statement that 200 lbs were in Pittsfield was false or date‑omitted; omission/falsehood required a Franks hearing and cross‑examination | Denied: No evidence affiant knew of falsity or acted with reckless disregard; Franks threshold not met |
| Whether trial court’s procedure (limiting cross‑examination) violated due process | Limited suppression‑hearing procedures are permissible; defendant could present affidavits/evidence | Abbreviated hearing and limitation on cross‑exam deprived Corwin of due process to make Franks showing | Denied: Procedure did not violate due process; defendant had opportunity to present proof and Franks does not guarantee unlimited discovery/cross‑examination |
| Whether affidavit established probable cause to search Pittsfield Street | Affidavit, viewed in totality, gave magistrate a substantial basis for concluding a fair probability of finding contraband | Affidavit omitted key facts, used stale/unsourced information, and relied on prior convictions and unnamed sources | Denied suppression: Magistrate had a substantial basis; close call but probable cause upheld |
| If no probable cause, whether Leon good‑faith exception applies | Officer reasonably relied on judge’s probable‑cause determination and on warrant’s technical sufficiency | Suppression still required because affidavit insufficient and officer reliance unreasonable | Denied: Officer’s reliance was objectively reasonable; good‑faith exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant entitled to evidentiary hearing if a substantial preliminary showing that affiant knowingly or recklessly included false statements that were necessary to finding of probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Sup. Ct.) (‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ test for probable cause in warrant affidavits)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Sup. Ct.) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule where officers reasonably rely on magistrate’s warrant)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio) (reviewing court must ensure magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause and afford deference to magistrate)