State v. Reece
2017 Ohio 8789
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In June 2016 a confidential informant (CI) made a controlled purchase of cocaine from William Maniaci; an audio-visual recording corroborated the CI’s account.
- On August 11, 2016 officers observed Maniaci leave a residence on Kibbey Drive where he was known to reside with appellant Shada Reece.
- Law enforcement obtained an anticipatory search warrant conditioned on the CI calling Maniaci, Maniaci leaving the Kibbey Drive residence, and Maniaci being found with cocaine at the time of arrest. The search yielded items indicative of drug activity.
- Reece was indicted on possession and tampering counts; she later pled no contest to an amended possession count (felony) and tampering, with other counts/specifications dismissed.
- Reece moved to suppress evidence, arguing the anticipatory warrant lacked probable cause (stale/remote buy, no nexus to the residence, CI unreliability, and insufficient triggering condition); the trial court denied suppression and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reece) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anticipatory warrant was supported by probable cause | The affidavit and corroboration (recording, CI-controlled buy, observation of Maniaci leaving the residence and later possessing drugs) provided a substantial basis for a magistrate to find probable cause that contraband would be at the residence when the triggering condition occurred | The affidavit relied on a two-month-old buy at a different location, lacked specific nexus tying Maniaci’s drug activity to the Kibbey Drive residence, and the triggering condition (Maniaci leaving after a call and being found with cocaine) was too speculative | Court held the warrant was supported by probable cause; deference to issuing judge, ongoing CI relationship and contemporaneous observation of Maniaci with drugs cured staleness |
| Whether the affidavit’s triggering condition made it likely contraband would be at the premises when executed | The State argued the triggering condition was sufficiently likely and supported by ongoing CI dealings and contemporaneous surveillance showing Maniaci with drugs | Reece argued the triggering condition was unlikely because Maniaci was arrested after entering/exiting vehicles and not immediately leaving the residence, and there was no history showing he would depart after a phone call | Court held the triggering condition was adequately connected to probable contraband presence given totality of circumstances and recent corroboration |
| Whether the good-faith exception to exclusion applies | The State asserted officers reasonably relied on the warrant issued by a neutral magistrate; suppression not required | Reece argued the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance was unreasonable and Leon’s exception should not apply | Court found probable cause sufficient and therefore did not need to reach or disturb good-faith analysis (rendered moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings: trial court factual findings accepted if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (magistrate must have substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed; deferential Gates approach)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause in warrant affidavits)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on a judicially issued warrant)
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (U.S. 2006) (anticipatory warrants require probable cause that contraband will be on premises when warrant is executed and that triggering condition is likely to occur)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (exclusionary rule enforces Fourth Amendment)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477 (Ohio Ct. App.) (recent corroboration of drug possession can cure concerns about staleness in search-warrant affidavits)