2022 Ohio 4604
Ohio2022Background
- On June 20, 2018 Alan Schubert’s car crossed left of center, collided with another vehicle, and the other driver died; Schubert was hospitalized and a blood draw (warrant-authorized) detected amphetamine and methamphetamine.
- Three cell phones were recovered outside the vehicles at the crash scene; there were no witnesses and Schubert reported no memory of the crash.
- Sergeant Chaney obtained a warrant to search the three phones based on an affidavit asserting, in conclusory terms, that the devices “may” contain timestamps, call/text records, cloud data, and other digital evidence related to the aggravated-vehicular-homicide investigation.
- Forensic examination of Schubert’s phone revealed suspected nude images of juveniles, producing child-pornography charges; Schubert moved to suppress the phone evidence as obtained under a constitutionally deficient warrant.
- The trial court denied suppression; the Fifth District held the affidavit lacked probable cause but applied the Leon good-faith exception to uphold the search. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed: it held the affidavit was bare‑bones, lacked the minimal nexus to the crime, the good-faith exception did not apply, and the warrant lacked probable cause; the cause was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Schubert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leon’s objective good-faith exception permits admission of evidence obtained under the cell‑phone warrant | Officer reasonably relied on a judge-issued warrant; affidavit showed a connection (phones at scene + officer training) so reliance was objectively reasonable | Affidavit was conclusory/speculative (repeated “may”), lacked any factual nexus tying the phones to the crash; no reasonable officer could rely | Good‑faith exception does not apply: affidavit was "bare bones" and failed to show a minimal connection, so reliance was unreasonable |
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search the phones | Presence of three phones at the scene and the officer’s training/experience made it reasonably probable the phones could contain evidence (e.g., distracted driving) | The affidavit offered only speculation that evidence "may" be on the phones; blood results pointed to impairment unrelated to phone use; no case‑specific facts linked the devices to the offense | Probable cause was lacking: the affidavit did not establish a fair probability that evidence of aggravated vehicular homicide would be found on the phones; warrant was defective |
| Remedy for evidence seized under the defective warrant | Evidence should be admissible under good-faith; suppression unnecessary | Evidence must be suppressed because the warrant was unsupported and good-faith inapplicable | Evidence obtained from the phone search must be suppressed; appellate judgment affirming denial of suppression reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (adopts objective good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule and lists when reliance on a warrant is unreasonable)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable‑cause standard: fair probability and deference to magistrate’s finding)
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) (an affidavit cannot rest on bare conclusions without underlying factual basis)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule’s deterrent purpose limits its application)
- State v. Wilmoth, 22 Ohio St.3d 251 (Ohio 1986) (adopts Leon’s good‑faith exception in Ohio law)
- United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2017) (defines "bare‑bones" affidavit and the minimally sufficient nexus for good‑faith review)
- United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes probable‑cause and good‑faith thresholds; minimally sufficient nexus concept)
- United States v. Laughton, 409 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2005) (identifies requirement of some modicum of connection between alleged crime and place to be searched)
- United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2006) (explains that an affidavit is bare bones when it fails to establish a minimally sufficient nexus)