State v. Rigel
2017 Ohio 7640
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Clark County Sheriff's Office investigated an alleged large-scale indoor marijuana operation run by Nicholas Rigel and his brother based on multiple confidential sources and a CI who made controlled buys in Oct. 2014.
- Property records showed several rental houses owned by an LLC tied to Rigel; utility records indicated unusually high electricity usage at several of those properties; Rigel lived at 709 Mayhill Drive.
- Law enforcement installed a pole-mounted video camera near the Detrick‑Jordan Pike property (without a warrant) and obtained warrants for a GPS tracking device on Rigel’s van, thermal imaging, a canine sniff (later suppressed), and multiple search warrants for properties including Detrick‑Jordan Pike, 310 Villa Road, Mayhill Drive, and Hillside Avenue.
- Searches on Aug. 12, 2015 uncovered large marijuana grow operations at Villa Road and Detrick‑Jordan Pike; subsequent search of Hillside Ave. found growing equipment after a new CI corroborated operations there.
- Rigel was indicted on multiple counts, moved to suppress evidence from the pole camera, GPS, thermal imaging, canine sniff, and the property searches; trial court suppressed the canine‑sniff warrant only and otherwise denied suppression. Rigel pleaded no contest to one count; appealed. Court of Appeals affirmed all suppression rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rigel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Detrick‑Jordan Pike searches | Rigel lacked ownership/expectation of privacy; even if not, searches lawful | Rigel claimed standing to challenge searches of that property | Court assumed arguable standing but found no prejudice because searches were lawful; assignment overruled |
| Warrantless pole camera surveillance | Observations from public vantage point pose no Fourth Amendment violation; long monitoring OK if public could observe same views | Camera was elevated and monitored for long period (138 days), making surveillance an unreasonable search | Surveillance lawful: camera recorded same view as passersby; duration did not make it unreasonable; assignment overruled |
| GPS tracking warrant and extensions | Warrant and Crim.R. 41 permit extensions for good cause; affidavit supported probable cause; omission of affidavit with extension motions not fatal | Extensions invalid (warrant precludes extensions; no new affidavit; no good cause) | Extensions properly granted under Crim.R. 41; affidavit/State's explanation showed good cause; even if error, no prejudice shown; assignment overruled |
| Probable cause for search warrants (GPS/thermal/searches) | Affidavits combined CI controlled buys, corroborating property records, electricity usage, pole‑camera observations, GPS data, odors, and subsequent on‑site discoveries to supply a substantial basis for probable cause | Affidavits relied on hearsay, uncorroborated CIs, stale information, and lacked nexus to Rigel | Court found affidavits provided substantial basis for probable cause for GPS, thermal, and property search warrants; staleness and hearsay resolved by corroboration and ongoing activity; assignments overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment reasonable-expectation-of-privacy framework)
- United States v. Houston, 813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2016) (utility-pole camera surveillance not a search if it records what passersby could see; duration alone does not render surveillance unreasonable)
- United States v. Powell, 847 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2017) (same principle regarding public vantage point observation)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (observations from a public vantage point do not constitute a search)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause based on hearsay/CI information)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression: accept trial court facts, review legal conclusion de novo)
- United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (commonsense inference that residences are used to conceal drug evidence)
- United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2008) (issuing judge may infer drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs)