State v. Noble, 2020 Ohio 695

Germantown PD received information (Middletown special ops + confidential informant) that meth was being sold from Apt. 4 on N. Main St.; informant performed a controlled buy that yielded meth.
Detective Sarver averred in the affidavit that the most recent purchases occurred within the prior 72 hours and requested a nighttime search for narcotics, money, records, digital media, paraphernalia, lock boxes/safes, and weapons.
A judge issued a warrant at 8:59 p.m. authorizing a nighttime search; police executed the warrant and found meth, pills, paraphernalia, and a locked safe containing drugs.
Noble was indicted on trafficking, aggravated possession, and paraphernalia charges; she moved to suppress arguing (1) the affidavit lacked facts to justify a nighttime search and (2) the warrant did not authorize opening a locked safe.
Trial court denied the suppression motion; Noble pleaded no contest to aggravated possession, was sentenced to four years, and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of nighttime warrant	Affidavit (recent controlled buy, ongoing sales within 72 hours) and reasonable inferences about drug trafficking/risks supplied sufficient grounds; magistrate acted within discretion	Affidavit contained no facts showing urgent necessity for a night search; judge lacked factual basis to authorize nighttime execution	Court upheld the nighttime warrant — magistrate did not abuse discretion; affidavit facts and reasonable inferences supported issuance
Authority to open locked safe	Warrant authorized search for drugs, money, weapons — items that reasonably could be hidden in a safe; opening containers on premises was within scope	Affidavit mentioned safes/lock boxes but the issued warrant omitted them, so opening the locked safe exceeded the warrant's scope	Court held opening the safe was within the scope of the warrant and suppression was not required

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause inquiry)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (warrant to search premises extends to containers that may hold the objects of the search)
State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio discusses magistrate's probable-cause role and deference)
State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 (particularity and scope concerns for warrants)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (recognition that drug dealers may be armed and dangerous)
United States v. Church, 823 F.3d 351 (warrant for drugs/money/paraphernalia justifies opening safes, closets, etc.)
State v. Bembry, 151 Ohio St.3d 502 (exclusionary-rule limitations for knock-and-announce violations referenced in concurrence)