State v. Littell
21 N.E.3d 675
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Aug. 20, 2012, an aerial narcotics spotter (Agent Nusser) observed suspected marijuana in the backyard of a Bath residence and told ground officers; he had observed marijuana at the same residence two years earlier.
- Nusser reported the backyard had a “stockade-like” fence with the back side down; helicopter hovered until officers arrived.
- Ground officers knocked on the front door; no one answered. Other officers entered the backyard and removed marijuana plants from pots before a warrant was sought. Officer Yovanno (testifying) arrived later, smelled marijuana from a ventilation system, then obtained a warrant to search the house. The search uncovered grow equipment and firearms.
- Littell was indicted for marijuana cultivation and weapons while under disability; he moved to suppress evidence. The trial court denied the motion; Littell pleaded no contest and was sentenced to community control.
- The appellate court reversed the denial of the suppression motion, concluding the State failed to prove a lawful entry or exigent circumstances that would permit warrantless entry into curtilage and seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police lawfully entered and seized evidence from Littell’s backyard without a warrant | State: officers could approach and go to backyard after no response at front door; plants were in plain view once officers were in the backyard | Littell: officers unlawfully entered curtilage to seize known contraband; plain view inapplicable because entry was unlawful | Entry and seizure unreasonable; State failed to show exigent circumstances and plain view did not apply because police were not lawfully located when they seized plants |
| Whether aerial observation gave officers authority to enter property without a warrant | State: aerial observation provided probable cause allowing ground entry and seizure | Littell: probable cause from the air does not justify warrantless entry onto curtilage to seize evidence | Aerial observation provided probable cause for a warrant but did not authorize warrantless entry or seizure of plants |
| Whether an implied visitor’s license allows access to backyard | State: officers were in an area a reasonably respectful visitor could go to make contact | Littell: implied license is limited to front approach and contact; does not authorize detours into backyard to search | Implied license limited to front approach; does not permit intrusion onto curtilage to search for/seize known contraband |
| Whether evidence obtained after the backyard entry (odor, ventilation, firearms) should be suppressed | State: observations/seizure supported a later warrant for the house search | Littell: those observations flowed from unlawful entry, so subsequent warrant and evidence are tainted | Evidence obtained after unlawful entry (including affidavit basis) was fruit of the illegal entry and suppression warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (curtilage intrusion for investigatory search exceeds implied license to approach front door)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain view seizure requires lawful presence and right of access)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (warrantless searches per se unreasonable except established exceptions)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (warrantless trespass to seize property invalid absent exception)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (Fourth Amendment’s touchstone is reasonableness)
- State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (1992) (plain view exception elements under Ohio law)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (appellate review standard for suppression motions)