State v. Long
157 N.E.3d 362
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Stephen Long was indicted on multiple counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving minors after police executed a search warrant at his home and seized videos/images.
- Perrysburg police obtained a tip from a person identified in the affidavit as a “confidential informant” who reported seeing Long masturbating to videos of young girls through a window; the affidavit described the tipster’s ability to see Long’s computer from inside his house.
- Officer McGuffin went to the informant’s house, observed Long at a computer from inside the informant’s residence, then walked to Long’s driveway and observed apparent child pornography on Long’s monitor.
- Detective Baumgardner’s affidavit used the term “confidential informant” but also supplied facts permitting inference that the tipster was Long’s neighbor/citizen eyewitness; a magistrate issued a warrant and evidence was recovered.
- Long moved to suppress (arguing the affidavit failed to show informant reliability and that McGuffin’s observations were from the curtilage/trespass) and requested a Franks hearing; the trial court denied both motions, Long pleaded no contest, and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Long) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification/reliability of informant | Tip came from neighbor/citizen eyewitness and is presumptively reliable | Affidavit labeled informant "confidential" and failed to vouch for reliability; insufficient corroboration | Informant was reasonably classifiable as a citizen eyewitness; citizen tip supplied probable cause |
| Sufficiency of affidavit to establish probable cause | Citizen eyewitness account alone sufficed to show a fair probability of evidence in the home | Without veracity proof or independent corroboration (if confidential), affidavit insufficient | Magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause based on the citizen tip; warrant upheld |
| Legality of McGuffin’s observations (curtilage/plain view) | McGuffin viewed through open blinds/stood on impliedly public area; observations lawful | McGuffin trespassed on curtilage to peer into window; observations unconstitutional and tainted the affidavit | Court did not decide curtilage issue: even excising McGuffin’s observations, citizen tip alone supports probable cause |
| Franks hearing / alleged false omissions | Affidavit contained no knowingly false statements and any omissions were immaterial | Affidavit omitted material facts (route taken, initial inability to corroborate), warrant may rest on false statements | Trial court correctly denied Franks hearing; Long failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Franks hearing standard for false statements in warrant affidavits)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant tips and probable cause)
- State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 (probable-cause standard and four-corners review of affidavits)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (informant categories; citizen eyewitnesses generally reliable)
- State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (citizen eyewitness tips are presumptively credible for probable cause)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (excising tainted affidavit material and assessing remaining untainted evidence)
- State v. Gross, 97 Ohio St.3d 121 (upholding warrants after excising unconstitutionally obtained information)