State v. Terrell
2017 Ohio 7097
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Andre Terrell was arrested after hotel security reported repeated trips between a Marriott room and a white van; officers smelled marijuana from the van and recovered small quantities of marijuana and a suspected amphetamine from Terrell’s person and more marijuana from the van. A ledger and two cell phones were also found on Terrell.
- Detective Mitchell obtained a search warrant for Room 623 based on: CI information (two confidential sources reporting Terrell sold drugs and providing phone numbers), security-guard observations of suspicious comings-and-goings, the officers’ on-scene findings (odors, drugs, ledger, phones), and Mitchell’s narcotics-unit experience and inferences about the ledger.
- Officers performed a brief warrantless entry/sweep of Room 623 to ensure no one inside could destroy evidence while awaiting a warrant; they did not seize evidence during that initial sweep.
- The magistrate issued the warrant; Terrell moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause (staleness, unreliable CIs, improper inferences), the warrant was overbroad, the pat-down and person-search lacked suspicion/voluntary consent, and the protective sweep was unlawful.
- The trial court and then the appellate court (this opinion) upheld the denial of suppression, finding the affidavit—viewed under the Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test—provided a substantial basis for probable cause; they rejected particularity, consent, and sweep challenges and affirmed convictions for trafficking and possession; post-Gonzales briefing was addressed and the court found Gonzales II controlling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Terrell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for search warrant | Affidavit (CI corroboration, security-guard observations, on-scene seizures, ledger, phones) gave fair probability evidence in Room 623 | Affidavit relied on stale/unverified CI information, impermissible inferences, and lacked nexus to Room 623 | Warrant supported: magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; affidavit viewed as whole (upheld) |
| Particularity / scope of warrant | Warrant items and catchall read together adequately guided seizure | Warrant was overbroad and allowed general rummaging; executing officers exceeded scope | Waived absent plain error; catchall read with specific items was adequate; no plain error shown |
| Pat-down / consent to search person | McCarty testified Terrell consented ("didn't care"); security guard heard consent; officers had safety and drug-activity justifications | Terrell said consent was involuntary/submission due to detention and belief search inevitable; pat-down was for drugs, not weapons, so not justified | Credibility credited to officers; totality shows voluntary consent and reasonable articulable suspicion/risk to justify limited search; claim rejected |
| Protective sweep of hotel room | Entry was to secure room to prevent destruction of evidence (Terrell gave inconsistent room info; reports someone could be inside; faint voices/TV heard) | No exigency: officers had key, no signs of imminent destruction, voices were TV, and they created any risk by approaching | Sweep was limited in scope/time, based on reasonable belief third party might be present and could destroy evidence; independent evidence supported later warrant, so suppression not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Castagnola, 46 N.E.3d 638 (Ohio 2015) (probable-cause affidavit must avoid impermissible inferences and not usurp magistrate’s role)
- State v. George, 544 N.E.2d 640 (Ohio 1989) (Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test; reviewing court ensures magistrate had substantial basis)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances approach to informant-based probable cause)
- State v. Dalpiaz, 783 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio App. 2002) (deficiency where affidavit lacked indicia of informant reliability)
- State v. Perez, 32 N.E.3d 1010 (Ohio App. 2015) (nexus requirement between suspected trafficking and place to be searched)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (consent invalid if given only in submission to claim of lawful authority)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (securing premises pending a warrant may be permissible and evidence later seized pursuant to independent warrant may be admissible)