State v. Middlebrooks, 2019 Ohio 2149

On Sept. 9, 2017 U.S. Marshals surveilled motel room 116 at the Great Lakes Motel (a known high‑drug area); an observed visitor (D.A.) entered and left shortly thereafter.
Marshals stopped D.A.; he threw an item into weeds, a crack pipe was found in his truck, and he admitted buying crack cocaine from a black male he later identified from a photo as Shawn (Shawn E.) Middlebrooks.
A search warrant for room 116 was obtained based on an affidavit by Captain Zachary Zender recounting the surveillance, D.A.’s admissions/identification, and other indicia (appellant’s clothes and belongings in the room, multiple phones, and cash on appellant).
A warrant search uncovered a box in a wall cavity accessible from inside the room containing a digital scale and 16 grams of heroin; appellant was apprehended fleeing when marshals approached.
Appellant was indicted for possession (felony 2) and trafficking (felony 1); jury convicted him of possession and acquitted him of trafficking. Trial court sentenced him to the maximum 8 years and assessed court costs.

Issue	State's Argument	Middlebrooks' Argument	Held
1. Validity of search warrant / motion to suppress	Affidavit supplied probable cause: motel is known drug area; D.A. admitted buying drugs from appellant and identified him; officers observed incriminating conduct	Affidavit contained false/misleading claims (hand‑to‑hand sale) and impermissible inferences; D.A.’s statements derived from an unconstitutional stop and lacked reliability	Warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause even excluding challenged assertions; D.A. was credible; suppression denied
2. Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence for possession conviction	Circumstantial and direct evidence established constructive/knowing possession: appellant occupied room, belongings there, drugs found in an interior wall space, D.A.’s purchase and ID, appellant fled and had cash	State did not prove appellant had dominion/control or knowledge of heroin; conviction unsupported	Evidence sufficient and not against manifest weight; conviction affirmed
3. Imposition of court costs (including confinement & appointed counsel)	Trial court intended to assess only statutory costs of prosecution; court did not explicitly impose confinement/appointed counsel costs	General recital of "court costs" included nonmandatory costs without a finding of ability to pay, so costs invalid	Court’s statement only imposed costs of prosecution under R.C. 2947.23; nonmandatory costs were not imposed; cost assessment sustained

State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (review of magistrate’s probable‑cause determination requires deference; court must ensure magistrate had substantial basis)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (1992) (to attack affidavit veracity, defendant must prove falsehood was intentional or reckless)
State v. McKnight, 107 Ohio St.3d 101 (2005) (definition of reckless disregard and materiality in Franks challenges)
State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170 (1980) (if affidavit contains false statements, court must determine if remaining facts suffice for probable cause)
State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 (2015) (distinguishes permissible officer inference from usurpation of magistrate’s role; addresses remedies for negligent vs. intentional misstatements)
State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (2004) (R.C. 2947.23 requires assessing costs of prosecution; waiver for indigents is permitted but not mandatory)