2014 Ohio 5728
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Canton Police Special Investigations used confidential informants to conduct controlled buys of synthetic marijuana from Adel Hmedian's convenience store in May 2013; two buys tested positive for Schedule I analogues.
- A third buy on July 2, 2013 did not yield a positive test and Hmedian was absent.
- Police obtained a search warrant on July 3, 2013 and executed it July 5, 2013, detaining Hmedian and seizing items that later tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids and related substances.
- Hmedian was indicted on trafficking, possession, and SNAP/WIC misuse counts; he moved to suppress evidence from the search.
- The trial court denied suppression; Hmedian pleaded no contest, was convicted, and sentenced to two years. He appealed, challenging the warrant’s probable cause and exclusion of certain defense witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hmedian's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit supported probable cause for search warrant (staleness) | Affidavit showing multiple controlled buys, lab positives, and continuing sales established fair probability contraband would be on premises | Earlier buys were stale by issuance of warrant; later non‑positive buy undermines probable cause | Court affirmed: under totality, buys and ongoing operation were sufficient; <2‑month lapse not fatal |
| Whether trial court erred excluding testimony of police officers who worked at Hmedian's store | State moved to exclude; testimony was more prejudicial/confusing than probative under Evid. R. 403 | Testimony would show lack of knowledge of illegal sales and support defense | Waived on appeal by no contest plea; trial court’s in limine exclusion upheld as interlocutory and not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable suspicion/probable cause reviewed de novo)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (deference to issuing magistrate; doubtful cases resolved for validity)
- United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488 (staleness analysis; non‑stale facts can suffice)
- United States v. Hammond, 351 F.3d 765 (factors for staleness inquiry)