State v. James
71 N.E.3d 1257
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In Jan–Feb 2015 a confidential informant (CI) made three controlled buys of heroin from Mark James inside his apartment while fitted with audio and video recording devices; audio was transmitted live, video recorded only.
- Buys yielded 0.33 g, 0.27 g, and 0.45 g of heroin; the last buy showed James retrieving packets from an eyeglass case in a bedroom.
- Based on the three buys, police obtained and executed a search warrant for James’s apartment and seized heroin, cocaine, and paraphernalia.
- James moved to suppress evidence, arguing the CI’s covert video recording of the apartment was a warrantless search of the home requiring suppression; the trial court denied the motion.
- James pleaded no contest to possession; he appealed the denial of the suppression motion. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether covert video recording by a CI inside a home constitutes a warrantless search requiring suppression | Recordings were lawful because James invited the CI into his apartment and exposed criminal activity to the CI, so no reasonable expectation of privacy existed | Covert video of the interior of the home was a warrantless search of a private residence and thus violated the Fourth Amendment | Affirmed: no Fourth Amendment violation—CI’s invited presence and voluntary revelation of criminal activity removed a reasonable expectation of privacy, so recordings were permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (search occurs when society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy that is infringed)
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (no Fourth Amendment protection for confided wrongdoing revealed to an associate)
- United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (agent’s recordings of defendant’s revelations do not implicate Fourth Amendment privacy expectations)
- Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (same principle for undercover agents using recording devices)
- State v. Geraldo, 68 Ohio St.2d 120 (no expectation of privacy for crimes disclosed to a supposed accomplice)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Hoffman, 141 Ohio St.3d 428 (Ohio Constitution affords same level of Fourth Amendment protection)