State v. Dibble
133 Ohio St. 3d 451
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Detective Wuertz sought a search warrant for Dibble’s home after interviews with two women, E.S. and E.K., about alleged inappropriate conduct by Dibble.
- The warrant, issued February 3, 2010, authorized seizure of computers, cameras, and data-storage media; execution yielded a laptop, camera, and videotapes.
- Dibble was charged with 17 counts of voyeurism, 4 counts of voyeurism, and 1 count of sexual imposition; none of the charges related to E.K.
- Dibble moved to suppress, alleging Wuertz knowingly included false statements in the search-warrant affidavit about E.K. being a “victim.”
- The trial court granted suppression, finding intentional false statements; the court of appeals affirmed; the state seeks review in this court.
- This court reverses, remanding for a new suppression hearing consistent with its holding that the alleged falsity was not proven under a proper, broad interpretation of “victim.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in suppressing evidence for allegedly false statements in the warrant affidavit. | Dibble argues Wuertz knowingly Included false statements to create probable cause. | State contends the affidavit’s statements, viewed broadly, were not false or were not material. | Yes; the trial court abused discretion; remanded for new suppression hearing. |
| Whether the definition of “victim” for E.K. was false or misleading in the affidavit. | Dibble asserts E.K. was an adult and not a victim; the affidavit mischaracterized. | Wuertz believed E.K. was a victim due to manipulation, thus not false under broader interpretation. | Not false under a broader, commonsense interpretation; not a basis to suppress. |
| Whether the court should treat nonrecorded sworn oral information under Crim.R. 41(C) differently for Fourth Amendment purposes. | Crim.R. 41(C) exclusion of unrecorded information is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. | Resolution unnecessary given the court’s stance on falsity. | Remanded for new suppression hearing; issue of Crim.R. 41(C) not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (necessity of Franks hearing if falsity impacts probable cause)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (affidavits drafted by nonlawyers—commonsense review standard)
- State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (1992) (test for intentional or reckless false statements in a search warrant affidavit)
- United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594 (7th Cir. 1984) (definition of falsity under reckless disregard standard)
- United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1990) (omissions count as false if designed to mislead or done with reckless disregard)
- State v. Moms, 132 Ohio St.3d 337 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard; requires sound reasoning)