State v. Seaburn
2017 Ohio 7115
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Police obtained a search warrant for Seaburn’s Fostoria residence on October 15, 2015; officers executed the warrant on October 20, 2015 and seized prescription pills, scales, cell phones, a stun gun, and $450.00.
- Seaburn was indicted on drug-trafficking, drug-possession, endangering children, and possessing criminal tools charges; forfeiture specifications named the currency, phones, and stun gun.
- Seaburn moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the search was invalid because it occurred after the three-day execution window stated on the warrant.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Seaburn pled no contest to all counts pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a $7,500 fine.
- On appeal, Seaburn challenged only the denial of the suppression motion, arguing Crim.R. 45(A) should not toll the three-day execution period where execution could have occurred over the weekend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 45(A) tolls the three-day execution period in Crim.R. 41(C)(2) so that a warrant issued Oct. 15 and executed Oct. 20 was timely | State: Crim.R. 45(A) applies to computing the execution period; excluding issuance day and weekend days yields timely execution | Seaburn: Tolling rule is intended for court-clerk filing availability, not to give officers extra time when they could have executed over the weekend | Court affirmed denial of suppression: Crim.R. 45(A) applies, excludes issuance day and intermediate weekend days, so execution fell within three days |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression: factual findings upheld if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (trial court as factfinder at suppression hearings)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (exclusionary rule as remedy for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (Fourth Amendment protection requires a reasonable expectation of privacy)