State v. Miser, 2013 Ohio 1583

Miamisburg police stopped a vehicle near Miser's residence after 9:00 p.m. on April 22, 2011 for headlight/taillight violations; occupants had prior drug offenses and later claimed to have bought drugs from Miser's residence.
A canine unit alerted on the vehicle; information at the scene linked Miser's apartment at 960 E. Pearl St., Apt. 1 to drug trafficking.
On April 23, 2011 at 12:50 a.m., officers obtained a search warrant for Miser’s apartment based in part on information from an occupant who claimed to buy drugs from Miser.
Officers executed the warrant, forcing entry when no one answered; Miser and two men were in the living room, with Miser’s children elsewhere in the apartment.
Miser was Mirandized, questioned at the scene and later at the station, informed of charges, and did not request an attorney; she pled no contest to related offenses in two cases.
A suppression motion arguing a potential material misrepresentation in the warrant affidavit was denied; Miser appealed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not pursuing the misrepresentation theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for challenging a possible warrant misrepresentation.	Miser’s counsel should have pursued potential misrepresentation in the affidavit.	Counsel could have relied on Franks to challenge reliance on info about informant intoxication.	No reversible error; suppression would not have been granted even with that information.

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. (1978)) (misrepresentations or reckless disregard in affidavits render search warrant invalid to extent of materiality)
State v. Smith, 117 Ohio App.3d 656 (Ohio App.3d 1997) (Franks framework applied to state warrants; omissions considered with materiality)