State v. Fayson, 2017 Ohio 7793

Seneca County indicted Marlos V. Fayson on multiple drug- and child-endangering charges; he pleaded no contest pursuant to a deal and was sentenced to an aggregate 12 years.
Prior to pleading, Fayson filed motions to suppress evidence obtained from a search executed under a magistrate-issued warrant; the motions challenged the warrant’s probable-cause basis.
The warrant affidavit relied largely on historical information about Fayson but included recent controlled-purchase activity: a confidential informant (CI 16-003) drove an individual (Hurst) to Fayson’s residence, officers observed Hurst enter and exit, the CI received drugs that field-tested presumptively positive for cocaine, and the purchases occurred within days of the warrant application.
Fayson argued the affidavit contained stale information and failed to establish CI reliability; the officers testified about CI use and surveillance corroboration, while Fayson denied selling drugs to Hurst and contested what had occurred at the duplex entry.
The trial court denied the suppression motions; on appeal the Third District reviewed whether the magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude probable cause existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Staleness of information supporting probable cause	The State argued the affidavit contained timely corroborated purchases (including one within 72 hours) supporting a fair probability of contraband at the residence.	Fayson argued much of the affidavit was historical and stale, insufficient to show contraband would be on the premises at the time of the warrant.	Court held recent corroborated purchases (most recent <3 days) supplied sufficient timeliness; historical material did not defeat probable cause.
Reliability of confidential informants	The State argued CI information was corroborated by officer surveillance and a field test, establishing a sufficient basis to credit the informant.	Fayson argued the affidavit contained only conclusory reliability statements and failed to disclose specifics of CI reliability history.	Court held officer corroboration (surveillance of Hurst entering/exiting and field test) provided independent verification, so the magistrate had a substantial basis to credit the CI.

State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (reviewing courts must ensure magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause and accord deference to magistrate)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause in informant-based affidavits)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (motion-to-suppress review is mixed question: accept trial court fact findings, review legal conclusion de novo)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court is the factfinder on suppression hearings; appellate courts defer to credible evidence)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (appellate courts accept trial court’s factual findings if supported by competent, credible evidence)
State v. Gill, 49 Ohio St.2d 177 (1977) (conclusory affidavits about informant reliability are insufficient; affidavit needs a basis for credibility)
Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206 (1932) (affidavit must supply timely facts closely related to warrant issuance)
State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (burden on defendant to prove suppression when search was done under a warrant)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (appellate courts independently determine whether facts meet legal standard after accepting trial court’s factual findings)
State v. Wallace, 986 N.E.2d 498 (Ohio App.) (when a warrant-based search is challenged, defendant bears burden to show evidence should be suppressed)