State v. Navarro, 2016 Ohio 749

In summer 2013 police investigated 129 Hale Drive (the Residence) after multiple citizen complaints and an anonymous tip that Navarro was growing marijuana in the basement.
Detective Gabriel Wedge surveilled the Residence, observed a white truck and black car, saw covered windows/blinds, and smelled the odor of fresh (unburnt) marijuana coming from the house.
On July 9, 2013 officers obtained a warrant to perform thermal imaging; the scan showed abnormal heat signatures consistent with indoor marijuana cultivation.
On July 11, 2013 Wedge obtained and executed a search warrant for the Residence; a marijuana grow was discovered. A third warrant later authorized searching a cell phone seized during the search.
Navarro moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the first two warrants lacked probable cause and the second warrant’s description of items to be seized was not sufficiently particular. The trial court denied suppression; Navarro pleaded no contest and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit supporting the first warrant established probable cause to search the Residence	Wedge: anonymous tip corroborated by vehicle description, covered windows, and the officer’s detection of fresh marijuana odor; thermal imaging later corroborated	Navarro: anonymous tip alone was insufficient; odor and other facts did not establish probable cause	Court: Affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause (odor detection plus corroborating observations); first and consequently second warrants upheld
Whether the second warrant’s list of items to be seized was sufficiently particular	State: not contested at trial; focus was on probable cause	Navarro: warrant was overly broad, authorizing seizure of items tied to all drug activity rather than solely marijuana cultivation/sale	Court: Issue waived because particularity argument was not raised below; therefore not considered on appeal

State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (holding that the smell of marijuana, when identified by a qualified person, can establish probable cause)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishing the totality-of-the-circumstances test for evaluating probable cause from informant tips)
State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio standard deferring to magistrate and requiring substantial basis for probable cause)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (describing appellate review of mixed law/fact in suppression rulings)
City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (waiver rule: issues not raised at suppression hearing are forfeited on appeal)
State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (appellate courts accept trial court’s factual findings if supported by credible evidence)