State v. Lunder
2017 Ohio 84
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 22, 2014, Pastor Jerome Golden called 911 to report that the front door of a commercial warehouse across the street from his church was "wide open" and that this was unusual for Sunday morning. Maple Heights officers responded.
- Officers entered the open building (after waiting for backup) to search for victims or suspects; they found a large-scale marijuana grow in plain view (plants, hazmat suits, lights, fans, soil, etc.).
- After securing the scene, detectives consulted the county prosecutor, were told a warrant was unnecessary for items in plain view, and arranged narcotics personnel to collect evidence; later they obtained a warrant for Lunder’s home and seized items linking him to the grow operation (documents, DNA on suits, photos, grow instructions, matching items at his residence).
- Lunder was indicted for cultivation, trafficking, possession of marijuana (5,000–20,000 grams), and possession of criminal tools; he moved to suppress the evidence from the warehouse entry. The trial court denied suppression; a jury convicted Lunder on all counts; sentence included community control and fines.
- The majority of the Eighth District affirmed, holding the warrantless entry was justified under the community‑caretaking / emergency‑aid (exigent‑circumstances) exception and that the evidence was sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Judge Blackmon dissented, arguing the facts (an open commercial door with no signs of forced entry or immediate danger) did not objectively support a reasonable belief of an emergency justifying warrantless entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless entry/search of the warehouse violated the Fourth Amendment | Entry was lawful under the community‑caretaking / emergency‑aid (exigent‑circumstance) exception because an open door on Sunday created a reasonable belief of a breach and potential danger to persons/property | Entry was unjustified: an open commercial door alone, with no signs of forced entry or immediate peril, did not give officers objectively reasonable grounds to enter without a warrant | Affirmed: entry was reasonable under the community‑caretaking / emergency‑aid exception (majority); search not unconstitutional |
| Whether evidence seized and later used to obtain a warrant for Lunder’s home was admissible | Evidence observed in plain view during a lawful entry justified collection and subsequent warrant | Suppression was required because initial entry was unlawful; later evidence tainted | Affirmed: plain‑view seizure and later warrant for the home were proper |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for drug convictions | Circumstantial and physical evidence (documents, DNA on suits, photos, matching items at residence, witness that Lunder leased building) established constructive/actual possession and trafficking | Evidence insufficient — argued mere access or coincidence, not dominion/control | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for conviction |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Jury verdict reasonable given overwhelming circumstantial proof of possession and operation involvement | Verdict against manifest weight given contested inferences and suppression claim | Affirmed: convictions not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 2012) (discusses community‑caretaking / exigent‑circumstances principles under Ohio law)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest‑weight review)
- Hankerson v. State, 70 Ohio St.2d 87 (Ohio 1982) (constructive possession: dominion and control may be proved circumstantially)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (limits on warrantless entries under exigent circumstances)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1984) (police burden to justify warrantless entries/arrests when exigent circumstances are asserted)
- Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (perspective that safety officers sometimes must act without delay and cannot "meditate" over reports)