State v. Pippin
2017 Ohio 6970
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Police seized Tony Pippin’s cell phone during a December 15, 2012 search of his residence in an investigation into rapes and burglaries. The phone was stored at the Delhi Township property room.
- On December 18, 2012 Detective Cox sought a warrant to search the phone’s data; before the warrant was signed, Cincinnati forensics analyst Radigan began attempting a data extraction and briefly opened the phone’s photo gallery while troubleshooting.
- Cox discovered the issuing judge had not signed the warrant, stopped the extraction, resubmitted the warrant the next morning, and obtained the judge’s signature dated December 18 (signed December 19 “as of” December 18). A full extraction was completed December 20.
- The extraction produced videos depicting sexual acts with a 15‑year‑old; Cox identified the victim and Pippin was indicted on multiple offenses; ten charges related to the child in the videos were later severed for plea/sentencing.
- Pippin moved to suppress the phone videos as the product of an unsigned-warrant search; the trial court denied suppression (finding no effective search before the signed warrant), Pippin pled no contest, and was sentenced to an aggregate 24 years. Pippin appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of phone videos | State: Evidence admissible because lawful warrant search (signed Dec. 19) and inevitable discovery | Pippin: Officers searched phone Dec. 18 without a signed warrant; evidence must be suppressed | Court: Even assuming an unlawful Dec. 18 search, videos admissible under inevitable‑discovery because Dec. 19 warrant was independent and supported by same facts |
| Validity / particularity of warrant | State: Affidavit and description of phone provided probable cause and sufficient particularity to search phone for evidence of rape/burglary | Pippin: Warrant lacked probable cause/was overbroad and failed particularity requirement | Court: Affidavit supplied a fair probability of finding evidence; warrant sufficiently particular and not overbroad |
| Franks hearing (truthfulness of affidavit) | State: No hearing required because, after excising alleged falsehoods, affidavit still established probable cause | Pippin: Affidavit contained misleading/false statements; entitled to evidentiary hearing under Franks | Court: Denial of hearing affirmed — redacted affidavit still supported probable cause, so no hearing required |
| Merger and consecutive sentences | State: Multiple convictions/sentences appropriate given separate acts/files and statutory findings | Pippin: Rape counts and pandering counts should have merged; consecutive terms improper | Court: Rapes and pandering counts did not merge (separate acts/animus); trial court made required R.C. findings for consecutive terms; sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (defendant may seek hearing to challenge affidavit falsehoods; must make substantial preliminary showing)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable‑discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (evidence later obtained under independent lawful warrant may be admissible despite earlier illegality)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (similar holding on lawful warrant following unlawful entry)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (warrant generally required to search cell‑phone data)
- State v. Williams, 57 Ohio St.3d 24 (unsigned warrant is void ab initio in Ohio)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (probable‑cause standard for magistrate reviewing warrant affidavit)
- State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 (particularity and scope analysis for electronic searches)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (standards for R.C. 2941.25 allied‑offenses merger)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirements for making consecutive‑sentence findings)