2016 Ohio 1263
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In Dec. 2012 an 18-year-old defendant, Keith, allegedly had sexual contact with a child under 13; police arrested him Jan. 14, 2013, interviewed him, took a saliva swab without a court order or consent, and obtained incriminating statements. The first DNA sample and statements were later suppressed by the trial court.
- After suppression, detectives obtained a search warrant (Aug. 2013) from a municipal judge and collected a second saliva swab, which was matched to semen found on the victim’s underwear.
- Keith filed a second motion to suppress the second DNA sample arguing probable cause was lacking, the warrant was tainted by earlier suppressed evidence, and exclusionary doctrines should apply.
- The trial court denied the second suppression motion; Keith pleaded no contest to attempted rape of a child under 13 and was sentenced to a mandatory seven-year term and designated Tier III sex offender.
- On appeal Keith argued (1) the municipal magistrate lacked probable cause and the warrant was tainted; (2) his plea was not knowing because the court erroneously told him his sentence was mandatory. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Keith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the municipal judge had probable cause to issue DNA warrant | Affidavit from identified victim describing intercourse and semen on underwear gave probable cause | Affidavit lacked indicia of reliability and did not justify finding probable cause | Probable cause existed; magistrate had substantial basis to issue warrant |
| Whether the warrant was tainted by earlier suppressed evidence (fruit of the poisonous tree) | Warrant affidavit did not rely on unlawfully obtained DNA or suppressed statements; oral background did not taint four-corners affidavit | Warrant was invalid because police sought it after unlawfully obtaining evidence and disclosed suppressed facts to judge | No taint: affidavit stood independent of suppressed evidence; warrant not invalid as fruit of poisonous tree |
| Applicability of exclusionary-rule exceptions (good-faith / inevitable discovery) | Not necessary to decide because warrant valid | Argued exceptions did not save the warrant/evidence | Court declined to reach exceptions because probable cause and no taint were dispositive |
| Whether plea was knowing and intelligent given court’s statement that sentence was mandatory | State contended mandatory sentencing applied (and would in any event under alternate provisions) | Keith argued there is no authority requiring attempted rape sentence to be mandatory, so plea advice was erroneous | Court held mandatory sentence applied under R.C. scheme for attempted rape of child under 13 (and alternatively because of prior juvenile adjudication), so plea was knowingly informed |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-circumstances probable-cause standard)
- State v. Jones, 37 N.E.3d 123 (Ohio 2015) (review of magistrate probable-cause determination; deference to issuing judge)
- State v. Deem, 533 N.E.2d 294 (Ohio 1988) (lesser-included offenses and pleading)
- State v. Williams, 660 N.E.2d 724 (Ohio 1996) (attempted rape is lesser of rape)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 720 N.E.2d 507 (Ohio 1999) (categories of informants and reliability of identified citizen informant)
- State v. George, 544 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio 1989) (deference to magistrate; marginal cases resolved for warrant)
- State v. Retherford, 639 N.E.2d 498 (Ohio App. 1994) (trial court factfinding role on suppression)