State v. Dibble
92 N.E.3d 893
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Feb–Mar 2010 police obtained a search warrant for Lawrence Dibble’s home based on an affidavit describing (1) consensual nude photos taken of an adult (E.K.) with a digital camera and (2) offensive touching of a student (E.S.) at school. Evidence seized from the house formed the basis of voyeurism and sexual-imposition charges.
- At an initial suppression hearing the affiant (Detective Wuertz) testified; he also had given off-the-record oral testimony to the municipal judge who issued the warrant, but that conversation was not recorded or transcribed.
- The trial court initially granted suppression (finding no probable cause and misconduct), this court affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, concluding the detective did not knowingly include false information; the case was remanded for further consideration of whether the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that good-faith reliance was unreasonable.
- On remand the trial court denied suppression (finding probable cause or at least reasonable good-faith reliance); this court held the April 2013 finding that the affidavit lacked probable cause became law of the case because the State did not cross-appeal.
- The court further held Crim.R. 41(C)(2) bars consideration of unrecorded oral testimony to bolster an affidavit at a suppression hearing and concluded the affidavit objectively lacked any nexus showing evidence would be at Dibble’s home; Leon’s good-faith exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s prior finding that the affidavit lacked probable cause is binding (law of the case) | State: prior ruling need not be binding; the court may consider additional record and off‑the‑record statements to find probable cause or good faith | Dibble: State failed to cross‑appeal the April 2013 finding of no probable cause, so that ruling is law of the case | The court: State forfeited the objection by not cross‑appealing; the lack of probable cause is law of the case |
| Whether unrecorded oral statements made to the issuing judge may be considered at a suppression hearing under Crim.R.41(C)(2) | State: trial court may consider what officer told the issuing judge to assess good faith | Dibble: Crim.R.41(C)(2) prohibits admitting unrecorded oral supplement to the affidavit at suppression hearings | The court: Crim.R.41(C)(2) bars use of unrecorded oral testimony; only the four corners of the affidavit (and recorded/transcribed testimony) are admissible |
| Whether Crim.R.41(C)(2) is constitutional or substantive beyond the Fourth Amendment | State: rule conflicts with Fourth Amendment and exceeds Ohio Supreme Court rulemaking authority | Dibble: rule is procedural and may impose greater state protections than the federal floor | The court: rule is procedural and constitutional; states may impose stricter procedures than the Fourth Amendment requires |
| Whether the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that Leon’s good‑faith exception does not apply | State: even if affidavit lacked probable cause, officers reasonably relied on the warrant (good faith), especially if one considers supplemental statements | Dibble: affidavit described consensual photos of an adult and a school touching with no nexus to the home, so no objectively reasonable basis to search | The court: affidavit did not establish a nexus to the home; no objectively reasonable good‑faith reliance — Leon exception does not apply; suppression required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishes good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (U.S. 2013) (probable cause standard: facts that would warrant a person of reasonable caution)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances approach to probable cause)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (probable cause tied to specific place/items sought)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (Ohio adoption/analysis of the Leon good‑faith principles)
- State v. Dibble, 133 Ohio St.3d 451 (Ohio 2012) (Ohio Supreme Court reversed trial court’s finding that detective knowingly included falsehoods)
- State v. Shepcaro, 45 Ohio App.2d 293 (10th Dist. 1975) (Crim.R.41(C)(2) requires recorded/transcribed supplemental testimony to be admissible at suppression hearings)