State v. Robinson, 2016 Ohio 7823

Defendant Jamish L. Robinson was investigated after being identified as the manager of Talk‑N‑Win, a suspected illegal gambling operation in the Northtowne Mall, Defiance, Ohio.
Investigators (Special Agent Edward Biederstedt and Major Case Investigator Damon Roberts) conducted undercover visits at Talk‑N‑Win in late 2014, used covert funds on player cards, won payouts, and observed Robinson working behind the counter on at least one visit.
Affidavit averred surveillance showing Robinson leaving his apartment, driving to the mall, entering/exiting near Talk‑N‑Win, and returning home shortly thereafter.
The affidavit also included investigator opinions about typical records and cash flows associated with illegal gambling and that managers may keep business records at home or access them remotely.
A magistrate issued a search warrant for Robinson’s residence; Robinson moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause tying criminal activity to his home. The trial court denied suppression, and Robinson later pled no contest to several counts; this appeal challenges the denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit supplied probable cause to search Robinson’s residence	Warrant affidavit established a fair probability evidence of illegal gambling/money laundering would be at the residence: undercover gambling at Talk‑N‑Win, observation of Robinson at the business, surveillance of trips between home and Talk‑N‑Win, and reasonable investigator inferences about records kept at home	Affidavit lacked sufficient, credible information connecting illegal activity at Talk‑N‑Win to Robinson’s home; no direct evidence that gambling or business functions occurred at the residence	The issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause; denial of suppression affirmed

State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (articulates that magistrate must find a fair probability that evidence will be found and that reviewing courts must ensure a substantial basis for the magistrate's decision)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (establishes the ‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ test for probable cause and the standard of fair probability)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (explains appellate review of suppression rulings: accept trial court factual findings, review legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (supports deference to a trial court’s factual findings at suppression hearings)
State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (1995) (trial court is best positioned to assess witness credibility at suppression hearings)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to the states for unlawful searches and seizures)
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (foundation for exclusionary rule in federal context)