2016 Ohio 5275
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Douglas Leavell’s residence (126 W. Parish St., Sandusky) after controlled heroin buys.
- Detective Adam West filed an affidavit describing three confidential informants (CI1, CI2, CI3) and multiple controlled purchases of heroin from Leavell.
- CI1 had participated in over 15 prior controlled buys for the department (buys from different address months earlier); CI2 participated in three prior buys and conducted purchases on dates including the day of the warrant; CI3 was untested but participated in a controlled buy the day the warrant was sought.
- Officers observed Leavell leave 126 W. Parish, complete sales, and return to the residence on several occasions, including two transactions the day the warrant was applied for.
- Trial court denied Leavell’s motion to suppress; Leavell pleaded no contest to multiple drug and weapons counts and was sentenced to 59 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Leavell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staleness of information | Warrant supported by recent buys (some on same day) so not stale | Prior events (2003 conviction; some CI1 buys months earlier/different address) were stale | Warrant not stale — CI2 and CI3 buys occurred on day warrant sought, curing staleness |
| Informant credibility/reliability | Officer personally observed controlled buys; informants’ reliability tested by controlled buys | CI2 and CI3 insufficiently tested; CI1’s past information at different address produced no contraband, undermining reliability | Informant credibility sufficient because affiant personally orchestrated and observed controlled buys; reliability detail not required in that circumstance |
| Nexus to residence | Affidavit showed observations tying Leavell’s travel between 126 W. Parish and sale locations | No direct link in affidavit connecting criminal activity to 126 W. Parish | Nexus satisfied: multiple observed departures/returns to 126 W. Parish around transactions supported probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d 640 (1989) (magistrate must make a practical, common-sense probable-cause determination considering veracity and basis of informant knowledge)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (2003) (appellate review of suppression rulings: accept trial court factual findings if supported, review legal conclusions de novo)
- State v. Gill, 49 Ohio St.2d 177, 360 N.E.2d 693 (1977) (when magistrate relies on hearsay informant statements, affidavit should include informant’s basis of knowledge and officer’s reasons for crediting the informant)