2021 Ohio 2599
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- From Sept 2015–Jan 2017 Butler County investigators developed a multi‑month case against Jacob Stonitsch (Martin’s then‑boyfriend) for interstate marijuana/hashish trafficking; that investigation culminated in a Butler County search warrant and charges.
- On Mar 30, 2018 a Butler County officer told a Hamilton County detective that Stonitsch and Abbey Martin had moved to Colerain Township and provided the Hamilton detective a copy of the Butler County affidavit (28 paragraphs dated Jan 2017).
- The Hamilton detective conducted no meaningful follow‑up surveillance or controlled buys for months; on June 19, 2018 he performed a single trash pull at the Colerain residence and found loose marijuana leaves, a marijuana cigar, multiple empty vacuum‑sealed bags, and two cut straws (one with white residue); he did not test the items.
- The Hamilton detective prepared a search‑warrant affidavit that copied 28 paragraphs verbatim from the Butler County affidavit, added three paragraphs about his qualifications, and three paragraphs describing the June 19 trash pull; a warrant issued and the search (June 26, 2018) yielded evidence that led to trafficking charges.
- The trial court found the affidavit lacked probable cause (Butler material was stale; trash pull alone showed only personal use) but denied suppression under the good‑faith exception. The appellate majority reversed: it held the Butler material was stale, the trash pull alone insufficient, the good‑faith exception inapplicable, and ordered suppression and vacatur of convictions.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Martin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search Martin’s Hamilton residence | The totality (Butler background + the June 19 trash pull) provided timely corroboration; a magistrate’s issuance warrants deference | Butler County information was 17–33 months old and concerned a different residence (stale); the trash‑pull evidence alone supported only personal use, not trafficking | No probable cause: Butler material stale and must be excised; remaining trash‑pull evidence, standing alone, insufficient to support probable cause for trafficking |
| Whether the good‑faith exception saves the search despite lack of probable cause | Officer reasonably relied on a judge’s warrant; evidence and background gave at least an indicia of probable cause so exclusion unnecessary | Affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause (stale background, weak trash pull) that no reasonable officer could rely on it; exclusionary rule should apply | Good‑faith exception does not apply: affidavit was so deficient that a reasonably well‑trained officer should have known it could not establish probable cause; suppression required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 37 N.E.3d 123 (Ohio 2015) (single trash‑pull evidence may corroborate background information under a totality‑of‑circumstances test)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1932) (affidavit must contain facts closely related in time to issuance of the warrant)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause assessed by totality of the circumstances; fair‑probability standard)
- State v. Castagnola, 46 N.E.3d 638 (Ohio 2015) (discusses exclusionary rule, deterrence, and limits of good‑faith reliance)
- United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2009) (stale information cannot be used in probable‑cause determinations)