2020 Ohio 5575
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In early 2019 Deputy Jesse Allen sought and obtained a warrant to perform a helicopter-mounted thermal‑imaging scan of 552 Pearl St.; the scan was performed March 1, 2019. Based on the scan and related investigation, warrants to search 552 Pearl and 354 Chestnut were issued and executed March 7, 2019, producing ~200 marijuana plants, harvested marijuana, grow lights, and ballasts.
- Scott was indicted (March 20, 2019) on three cultivation/manufacture counts; he moved to suppress evidence, arguing the affidavit(s) contained intentional or recklessly false statements and that much of the information was stale.
- The suppression hearing spanned multiple days; the trial court denied the motions, finding Scott did not prove material falsehoods or reckless omissions by Deputy Allen.
- Scott pleaded no contest to one count pursuant to a plea agreement; other counts were dismissed; he was sentenced to four years and appealed, challenging the denial of suppression (three related assignments of error).
- The court reviewed (mixed law/fact): it accepted the trial court’s factual findings if supported by competent, credible evidence and reviewed legal conclusions de novo; it analyzed Franks challenges, probable cause, staleness, and Leon good‑faith applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affiants knowingly or recklessly included false statements or omitted material facts (Franks challenge) | State: Scott failed to prove intentional or reckless falsehoods or misleading omissions; many alleged errors were innocent mistakes or reasonable reliance on informants/Agent Webb | Scott: Affidavits contain numerous materially false/misleading statements and omitted critical facts (templates, informant unreliability, misstatements about evidence) that were necessary to probable cause | Court: Overruled. Competent, credible evidence supports trial court finding no intentional or reckless falsehoods; many inaccuracies were innocent mistakes or reasonable reliance on others. |
| Whether the thermal‑imaging affidavit mischaracterized the science or overstated probative value of a thermal scan | State: Thermal imaging can produce probative evidence and Agent Webb’s interpretation was reasonable; Allen accurately summarized for judicial audience | Scott: Allen misdescribed thermography, overstated device capabilities and the certainty that a house "appears consistent" with a grow | Court: Held Allen’s descriptions were sufficiently accurate for a magistrate, not materially misleading; Agent Webb’s interpretation was reasonably relied upon. |
| Whether the affidavits were too stale to support probable cause and, if so, whether Leon’s good‑faith exception saves the searches | State: Recent 2019 corroboration (traffic stop items, high electricity usage, thermal scan, tip about Chestnut storage) refreshed older tips and supported probable cause; even if stale, affidavits had sufficient indicia of probable cause for good‑faith reliance | Scott: Much of the investigative material dated 2008–2015 and was stale; the thermal scan and comparisons were unreliable | Court: Held the 2019 evidence refreshed pre‑2019 information and provided a straight line to ongoing activity; even if staleness were an issue, the good‑faith exception applies because the warrants contained sufficient indicia of probable cause and were not the product of deliberate or reckless misstatements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant may challenge affidavit for intentionally/recklessly included false statements and courts must redact proven falsehoods to reassess probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a common‑sense, totality‑of‑the‑circumstances inquiry; issuing magistrate entitled to great deference)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (observations of fellow officers in a common investigation are a reliable basis for a warrant)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (Ohio precedent on probable cause standard for warrant affidavits)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (appellate review of suppression rulings: accept trial court’s factual findings if supported; review legal conclusions de novo)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (trial court as factfinder at suppression hearings)