2018 Ohio 2819
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Officers in plain clothes observed Nelson repeatedly walking between the rear of the Red Roof Inn office building (where Room 109 is located) and a parked Dodge Charger; they found this behavior suspicious.
- Nelson met Christina Richardson in the hotel laundry room; Richardson later rode in a Honda that was stopped and found to contain heroin and cocaine; she admitted she went to buy drugs at the hotel and identified Nelson as her seller.
- Richardson provided the phone number she used to contact her seller; that number matched a phone recovered from Nelson's car, which also contained a digital scale and another phone; a caller ID test corroborated the match.
- Nelson lied about which room he was registered in (claimed Room 117 while hotel records showed Room 109); officers held Room 109 pending a warrant.
- Agent Taylor (affiant) attested to his narcotics investigation experience and averred that drug traffickers commonly keep drugs, scales, records, and packaging in residences; a municipal judge issued a warrant for Room 109, and the search produced drugs, a scale, chargers, and other items.
- Nelson was indicted on multiple drug counts; the trial court denied his motion to suppress, concluding the affidavit established probable cause (and alternatively applying the good-faith exception). Nelson pled no contest and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Nelson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause linking Nelson's drug activity to Room 109 | Affidavit established a nexus: surveillance of Nelson’s movements to/from Room 109, buyer’s ID of Nelson, matching phone evidence, scale in his car, his statement about supplying ounces, and his lie about room number | Affidavit lacked sufficient nexus between observed drug activity and the hotel room to support a warrant | Court held affidavit provided a sufficient nexus and probable cause to search Room 109; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Whether the good-faith exception should salvage the search if probable cause were deficient | Trial court argued good-faith exception applied to validate the search | Nelson challenged application of good-faith exception | Appellate court declined to reach the good-faith issue because it found probable cause adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (magistrate must assess whether affidavit shows a fair probability that evidence will be found in the place to be searched)
- State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio 2015) (review of warrant affidavits examines the totality of circumstances and defers to the issuing judge)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings: factual findings accepted if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Graddy, 55 Ohio St.2d 132 (Ohio 1978) (review of affidavit sufficiency confined to information presented to the issuing judge)
- United States v. Caicedo, 85 F.3d 1184 (6th Cir. 1996) (a defendant's false statements about residence can support an inference of concealment of contraband)