2021 Ohio 1478
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Alan Schubert drove into oncoming traffic on June 20, 2018, causing a fatal head-on collision; the other driver died and Schubert was hospitalized.
- Hospital-drawn blood tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine; police obtained a warrant to search Schubert’s blood and later sought warrants for three cell phones found at the scene.
- Forensic review of one phone revealed nude photos of juvenile females, leading to additional pandering-obscenity charges.
- Schubert moved to suppress the blood test and phone searches on statutory/administrative noncompliance, alleged false or misleading affidavit statements, and lack of probable cause; the trial court denied suppression.
- Schubert pleaded no contest to aggravated vehicular homicide and pandering obscenity counts; counts were merged and he was sentenced to an aggregate 12 years; he appealed raising four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Schubert's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of blood evidence under R.C. 4511.19 and OAC substantial compliance | Blood evidence admissible because State proved substantial compliance with OAC protocols | Blood tests should be suppressed for failure to comply with R.C. 4511.19 and OAC rules (antiseptic, tube, refrigeration) | Court: Although not analyzed by a health-care provider under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a), substantial compliance with OAC 3701-53-05 shown; blood results admissible |
| 2. Right to present witnesses/cross-examine at suppression hearing (alleged false affidavit statements) | No entitlement to Franks hearing without a nonconclusory offer of proof or affidavits | Court abused discretion by not allowing witnesses/cross-exam on alleged false statements and pre-warrant phone search | Court: Denial of expanded hearing proper; Schubert failed to make the required preliminary showing or support it with affidavits, and he suffered no prejudice |
| 3. Probable cause for warrants (blood and initial phone search) | Warrants supported by observations (vehicle positions, injuries, positive tox screen) and phones could contain evidence | Warrants lacked probable cause; phone affidavit speculative and overbroad | Court: Blood-warrant probable cause adequate; warrant for initial search of phones lacked probable cause |
| 4. Applicability of good-faith exception to phone warrant | Even if lacking probable cause, officers reasonably relied on the issued warrant (Leon), so seized phone data admissible | Good-faith exception inapplicable because affidavit was "bare bones" and facially deficient | Court: Good-faith exception applies to the first phone warrant; second warrant (based on discovered juvenile images) had probable cause for further search |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations reviewed de novo)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause in warrant affidavits)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requirements for a hearing to challenge alleged false statements in a warrant affidavit)
- State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207 (2005) (substantial-compliance standard for blood-alcohol/drug evidence under OAC and R.C. 4511.19)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (deference to magistrate on probable cause; doubtful cases resolved in favor of upholding warrants)