State v. Hobbs
133 Ohio St. 3d 43
Ohio2012Background
- Appellant Hobbs was arrested based on a warrant issued by a deputy clerk who also served as a sergeant in the Summit County Sheriff’s Department.
- The Barberton Municipal Court deputy clerk was employed by the Sheriff’s Department, raising neutrality concerns under Crim.R. 4(A)(1).
- The arresting detective presented a complaint and affidavit; the deputy clerk signed the warrant after reviewing the materials.
- Trial and appellate courts found the warrant invalid due to the deputy clerk’s dual role, but found no suppression of evidence was warranted.
- The State argued the deputy clerk’s role was ministerial and Crim.R. 4(A)(1) did not require a neutral magistrate; Hobbs challenged the dual-capacity influence.
- The Ohio Supreme Court ultimately held the dual-capacity deputy clerk is not a neutral and detached magistrate for purposes of probable-cause determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can dual roles negate neutrality for probable-cause determinations? | Hobbs: dual capacity undermines neutrality | State: deputy clerk’s role permissible; separation exists in practice | Negative for Hobbs; not neutral and detached |
| Is the exclusionary rule the proper remedy for an invalid arrest warrant? | Hobbs: exclusionary remedy appropriate | State: suppression not triggered if no evidence obtained | Not reached; appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted |
Key Cases Cited
- Shadwick v. Tampa, 407 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1972) (neutral and detached magistrate requirement for probable cause)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1971) (warrant invalid when officer in charge of investigation is judge)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (exclusionary rule as Fourth Amendment safeguard)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1980) (illegal arrest does not automatically bar prosecution)
- United States v. Woodbury, 511 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2007) (suppression where warrant defect precedes evidence)
- Gillen-Crow Pharmacies, Inc. v. Mandzak, 5 Ohio St.2d 201 (Ohio 1966) (acceptance of trial findings unless lacking probative value)
- Peer v. Industrial Commission, 134 Ohio St. 61 (Ohio 1938) (mixed question of law and fact standard of review)