State v. Dibble, 959 N.E.2d 540

On February 3, 2010, Detective Wuertz sought a search warrant for defendant's home after speaking with two individuals, E.S. and E.K., who reported inappropriate conduct by defendant as a theater instructor.
The warrant affidavit described E.S. as a victim of touching at school and referenced E.K., who later claimed similar acts occurred after she was no longer a student, including photos of her nude area.
Executing the warrant, police seized a laptop, camera, and tapes; defendant was indicted on 20 counts of voyeurism and one count of sexual imposition as to E.S.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing Wuertz mischaracterized E.K. as a victim; a suppression hearing was held on June 29, 2010, with Wuertz testifying.
The trial court found Wuertz knowingly and intentionally referred to E.K. as a victim to create probable cause, suppressed the evidence, and later denied a reconsideration; the state appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of Franks hearing	State contends the hearing should address only initial Franks burden.	Dibble argues the hearing properly addressed false statements and probable cause.	Franks two-step process properly applied; assignment overruled.
Intentional or reckless falsity	Wuertz’s use of E.K. as a victim was justified by ongoing investigation and credibility of sources.	Wuertz knowingly included false material about E.K. to create probable cause.	Trial court's finding of intentional falsity upheld; suppression affirmed.
Good-faith exception	Leon good-faith should excuse suppression due to reliance on warrant.	No good-faith due to deliberate false statements undermining probable cause.	Good-faith exception rejected; suppression affirmed.
Impact of Victim No. 2 label	Even without E.K., evidence could link to criminal conduct via E.S. and other facts.	Without the victim No. 2 label, remaining allegations do not tie to probable cause at home.	Franks violation invalidated warrant; without true basis, no probable cause.

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 1978) (two-step Franks process for falsity in search-warrant affidavits)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (S. Ct. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (S. Ct. 2009) (reliance on technically defective warrant; good faith valid in limited contexts)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (2005-Ohio-6046) (framing falsity standard for attacking warrant affidavits)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (1992-Ohio-365) (franks standard and recklessness in false statements)