State v. Elschlager
2017 Ohio 5545
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 17, 2016 Washington County officers executed a search warrant at William Elschlager’s home seeking items allegedly stolen from A.B. and records related to stalking/harassment-related offenses. Elschlager lived at the residence and was an Ohio State Highway Patrol sergeant.
- Officers found a Steyr Mannlicher pistol inside an Ohio State Highway Patrol evidence bag with chain-of-custody paperwork; they seized it (State does not appeal denial of suppression for this gun).
- In the attic officers found ammunition addressed to the Highway Patrol Academy and, in a cardboard box, a .380 Jennings pistol; the Jennings was later identified as evidence from a 2004 Delaware County case ordered destroyed.
- Elschlager moved to suppress the Jennings pistol; the trial court granted suppression for the Jennings but denied suppression for the Steyr.
- The State appealed only the suppression of the Jennings pistol, arguing lack of standing to challenge the seizure, plain view, community-caretaking, and good-faith exceptions to warrant requirement.
- The trial court held Elschlager had standing (owner/occupant with dominion over the attic box) and that seizure of the Jennings exceeded the warrant and was not plainly incriminating; the court affirmed suppression on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge seizure of Jennings pistol | State: Elschlager lacked standing to challenge seizure of allegedly stolen property | Elschlager: As owner/occupant with control over attic box, he had a legitimate expectation of privacy and possessory interest | Court: Elschlager had standing; possessory interest established |
| Plain-view exception | State: Jennings was in plain view during lawful search; incriminating character was immediately apparent | Elschlager: Jennings lacked indicia of criminality (no evidence tag); not immediately incriminating | Court: Not plain view—no probable cause to associate Jennings with criminality; suppression proper |
| Community-caretaking exception | State: Officers seized gun to protect alleged victim and community (anticipated protection order) | Elschlager: No protection order existed; warrant did not authorize firearms; not an inventory/vehicle caretaking search | Court: Not a community-caretaking seizure; exception inapplicable |
| Good-faith exception (Leon) | State: Officers acted in objective good faith relying on the warrant; exclusionary rule should not apply | Elschlager: Warrant did not authorize firearms; seizure exceeded scope | Court: Good-faith exception does not justify seizure because the gun was outside warrant parameters and its criminality was not apparent |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain-view seizure requires incriminating character to be immediately apparent)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (warrantless searches/seizures are per se unreasonable except for established exceptions)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- State v. Halczyszak, 25 Ohio St.3d 301 (probable cause for plain view may be based on officer training/experience)