State v. Dibble (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 546

Background

Laurence Dibble, a high-school teacher, was investigated after two women reported improper sexual conduct; police obtained a warrant to search his home and seized extensive media showing students undressing, including a hidden‑camera locker‑room tape.
The warrant affidavit described two complainants ("Victim #1" — a student groping allegation; "Victim #2" — a former adult student). The affidavit omitted sworn oral testimony the detective said he gave the issuing judge about photos of underage students in nearly see‑through unitards.
Dibble moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit contained false statements and lacked probable cause; the trial court initially granted suppression under Franks, this court reversed on the Franks issue (Dibble I), and the matter was remanded.
On remand, the trial court found the affidavit did not establish probable cause but that the detective acted in good faith; the Tenth District remanded to address whether the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that good faith was unreasonable.
At a subsequent hearing the trial court relied on the detective’s unrecorded oral testimony to the judge; the Tenth District held Crim.R. 41(C)(2) barred use of unrecorded testimony and concluded the good‑faith exception did not apply, ordering suppression.
The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which held that courts may consider sworn but unrecorded oral statements presented to the issuing judge when evaluating an officer’s objectively reasonable, good‑faith reliance on a warrant, reversed the Tenth District, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Dibble's Argument	Held
May a court consider sworn but unrecorded oral testimony given to the issuing judge when assessing an officer’s good‑faith reliance on a warrant?	Yes — courts may consider all circumstances known to the officer and revealed to the judge; Leon permits review beyond the four corners for good‑faith analysis.	No — Crim.R. 41(C)(2) makes such testimony inadmissible at suppression hearings unless recorded/transcribed; allowing it permits post hoc justification.	Held: Yes — courts may consider sworn but unrecorded oral statements for the Leon good‑faith inquiry.
Does Crim.R. 41(C)(2) bar consideration of unrecorded oral testimony for any purpose at a suppression hearing?	Rule does not bar consideration for good‑faith review; it governs admissibility for probable‑cause review but is not an absolute exclusion for good‑faith analysis.	Rule requires recording for admissibility; failure to record renders testimony inadmissible and serves the rule’s deterrent purpose.	Held: Crim.R. 41(C)(2) does not bar consideration of unrecorded sworn oral testimony when evaluating an officer’s good faith; the rule is an admissibility provision for probable‑cause review but does not preclude totality‑of‑circumstances good‑faith review.
Was the detective’s reliance on the warrant objectively reasonable (Leon third exception)?	Yes — when the affidavit is viewed together with the unrecorded sworn statements presented to the judge, reliance was reasonable.	No — the affidavit alone lacked any indicia of probable cause to search the home; unrecorded testimony should be excluded and suppression required.	Held: The detective’s reliance was reasonable given the totality of the information presented to the judge; exclusion would not further deterrence.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (materially false statements in an affidavit must be shown to void a warrant)
Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984) (consideration of judge‑detective conversation in good‑faith analysis)
United States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2005) (courts may consider information known to the officer and revealed to the magistrate when assessing good faith)
United States v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1994) (contemporaneous oral statements to the magistrate may be considered with the affidavit in good‑faith review)
State v. Wilmoth, 22 Ohio St.3d 251 (Ohio 1986) (Ohio adoption and application of Leon)
State v. Dibble, 133 Ohio St.3d 451 (Ohio 2012) (earlier Ohio Supreme Court decision addressing Franks issue and the affidavit's language)