2020 Ohio 4763
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- June 2018: Police executed a search warrant at Che Glynn’s Fairborn residence and seized ~25 grams of cocaine mixed with fentanyl, a scale, spoons with residue, drug paraphernalia, and two cell phones.
- Det. Brian Neiford’s affidavit described two controlled buys (May 22 & 24, 2018) in which a confidential source (CS) — searched and given buy money by detectives and electronically monitored — entered Glynn’s home and left with suspected heroin/fentanyl after Glynn handed the substance to the CS.
- The affidavit included Neiford’s training/experience and modus operandi averments that drug traffickers commonly store drugs, proceeds, and records in their residences (and that phones commonly contain incriminating evidence).
- Glynn moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit failed to establish the CS’s veracity/basis of knowledge and did not verify the purchased substance as a controlled substance; a four‑corners hearing was held on the affidavits only.
- Trial court denied suppression; Glynn pled no contest to two third‑degree felony counts (conspiracy to traffic cocaine; trafficking heroin), reserved appeal, and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search warrant for Glynn’s residence was supported by probable cause | Affidavit’s controlled buys, officer surveillance, and officer experience supplied a fair probability that contraband would be found | Affidavit failed to establish CS credibility/basis and never chemically verified the substance | Probable cause existed under the totality of the circumstances; warrant valid; evidence not suppressed |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion / committed plain error by denying suppression (alleged improper evaluation and deference to officer) | Court performed a four‑corners review and relied on the affidavits and officer observations, not mere deference to title | Trial court accepted affidavits solely because affiant was an officer and failed to independently evaluate | No abuse of discretion or plain error; court articulated a detailed probable‑cause analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes the totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause to issue a warrant)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (probable cause inquiry looks to whether there is a fair probability that evidence will be found at the place to be searched)
- State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 (reviewing courts must ensure magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude probable cause existed; deference to magistrate encouraged)
- State v. Karr, 44 Ohio St.2d 163 (an informant’s personal observation can provide a sufficient basis for the informant’s information in a warrant affidavit)