State v. Hudson, 2013 Ohio 4967

Undercover buy on Nov. 9, 2006: Det. Felt and a confidential informant gave $60 to a man known as “Ray,” who went into 1095 Miller SW and returned with three rocks of crack cocaine. The buy was observed and the drugs were field-tested as cocaine.
Det. Tackett (supervising agent) prepared an affidavit for a search warrant describing the buy, the residence, and the recovery of drugs, but the affidavit did not state which statements were based on Tackett’s personal knowledge or identify the specific sources of the hearsay.
A judge reviewed the affidavit, was assured by Tackett the statements were true as he believed, and issued the search warrant.
The warrant was executed Nov. 13, 2006, yielding 27 grams of crack; Hudson was later indicted for possession of cocaine.
At a suppression hearing Tackett testified he supervised the buy, could see most of the transaction, heard other parts via a transmitter, and had worked with the informant before; the trial court suppressed the evidence because the affidavit lacked foundation for the hearsay.
The state appealed; the appellate court agreed the affidavit lacked the required hearsay foundation but reversed suppression under the Leon good-faith exception and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the affidavit sufficient to establish probable cause when based on hearsay?	Hearsay may be relied on; the affidavit’s totality established probable cause.	Affidavit was foundationless hearsay with no indication of source or basis of knowledge, so no probable cause.	Affidavit was insufficient because it failed to disclose source/basis of hearsay, leaving magistrate unable to assess credibility.
Could the issuing judge rely on hearsay under Crim.R. 41(C)?	Yes; judges can consider hearsay if there is substantial basis to believe source and factual basis.	No substantive basis shown in affidavit to assess reliability.	Court emphasized rule but found the affidavit did not provide the necessary foundational details.
Should doubtful cases be resolved in favor of the magistrate?	Close questions favor upholding warrants.	Affidavit deficiencies here are not cured by deference.	Deference applies, but it cannot replace required foundational information about hearsay.
Even if warrant invalid, should the evidence be suppressed or admitted under Leon good-faith?	Officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on a judge-issued warrant; admit evidence.	The warrant was defective and suppression appropriate.	Good-faith exception applies: Tackett’s conduct was not dishonest/reckless and omission appeared inadvertent, so evidence is admissible.

State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause; deference to magistrate)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (veracity and basis-of-knowledge are part of the totality analysis)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for officers reasonably relying on a warrant)
United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (opinions of fellow officers may be reliable for warrants)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for attacking truthfulness of affidavit)
State v. Henderson, 51 Ohio St.3d 54 (1990) (police observations in a common investigation are reliable for warrant affidavits)