State v. Jackson, 37 N.E.3d 1288

Background

Police investigated Tara Bell after an informant tip, executed a search warrant at her home, and learned she had heroin she wanted held by Tyrone Jackson.
Bell agreed (according to police) to act as a confidential informant and was wired to retrieve the heroin from Jackson at his Bellfield Avenue home; officers observed Jackson hand a bag to Bell and field-tested its contents as heroin.
Detective Monteleone swore an affidavit describing Bell’s role and what he characterized as a "controlled purchase" by Bell from Jackson; a search warrant for Jackson’s home issued and police found drugs and guns.
Jackson moved to suppress, later obtaining Bell’s affidavit claiming she never cooperated with police, never gave statements about Jackson, and never participated in a controlled purchase.
The trial court held a Franks hearing, found the affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth, excised those portions, concluded the remaining affidavit lacked probable cause, and granted suppression.
The State appealed; the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression order.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Jackson's Argument	Held
Whether Jackson made a sufficient preliminary showing under Franks to obtain a hearing	Jackson failed to specifically identify false statements and thus did not meet the Franks threshold	Bell’s sworn affidavit contradicted Monteleone’s affidavit and satisfied Franks’ preliminary showing	Court: Jackson met the Franks preliminary showing; hearing was proper
Whether the affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth	Affidavit inaccuracies were clerical, drafting-style, or non-malicious and did not rise to Franks-level misconduct	Paragraphs 3–7 materially mischaracterized the interaction (portraying a sale/controlled buy when Bell had purchased heroin elsewhere and merely retrieved it from Jackson), conflicting with officer testimony and the recording	Court: The challenged averments were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard; Franks burden satisfied
Whether the trial court exceeded the scope of Jackson’s suppression motion at the Franks hearing	Hearing impermissibly expanded beyond the specific issue Jackson raised (Bell’s cooperation), so additional challenges were improper	Details of Bell’s interactions with police and Jackson were reasonably within scope once Bell’s affidavit was considered	Court: Hearing scope was proper; Jackson orally supplemented and challenged paragraphs 3–7, and the court did not err
Whether, after excising false material, the affidavit still supported probable cause for the warrant	Even without the challenged statements, sufficient facts remained to show a fair probability of additional contraband at Jackson’s home	Without the misstatements, the affidavit only showed Jackson handed a bag to Bell; no remaining basis for probable cause regarding further contraband inside the home	Court: After excision, affidavit lacked probable cause; suppression affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes right to an evidentiary hearing when a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a warrant affidavit contains deliberate falsehoods or reckless falsehoods)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause must be assessed by a practical, common-sense evaluation of the affidavit as a whole)
State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170 (1980) (Ohio adoption and discussion of Franks standard)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (1992) (defendant must show by a preponderance that an affiant knowingly or recklessly included false statements)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (2005) (defines reckless disregard as affiant having serious doubts about truth of allegations)
State v. Dibble, 133 Ohio St.3d 451 (2012) (cautions against hypertechnical parsing of affidavit language; errors may not show bad faith)