State v. Thomas, 91 N.E.3d 1273

Thomas was investigated for drug trafficking from Sept 2014 through Oct 2015, with extensive surveillance and multiple trash pulls.
Investigation methods included video surveillance, trash searches, GPS on Thomas’s car, and observed drug transactions.
Thomas was indicted on five counts (heroin possession, trafficking, illegal manufacture, pattern of corrupt activity, and weapons) with related MDO and forfeiture specifications.
Thomas moved to suppress several pieces of evidence, including a GPS warrant, pole-camera footage, and vehicle searches; motions were denied.
Thomas pled no contest to Counts One and Four (with MDO and Cadillac forfeiture) and Count Five; Counts Two and Three were dismissed; total sentence 23 years consecutive.
On appeal, Thomas raises issues about GPS probable cause, pole-camera surveillance, illicitly obtained evidence, the sufficiency of the indictment, and alleged conflicts of interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
GPS warrant probable cause	Warrant stale; information tainted by illegality; insufficient probable cause.	Affidavit lacked probative detail; information tainted the warrant; suppression required.	Probable cause supported; good-faith exception applies.
Warrantless detentions and dog sniff	Stop/search lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion; dog alert invalid.	Stop/search supported by probable cause and corroborating evidence; dog sniff valid.	Motion to suppress denied; probable cause established.
Pole-camera surveillance	Constant surveillance of home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.	Pole-camera observations mirror public observations; no reasonable expectation of privacy.	Pole-camera evidence admissible; no violation of Fourth Amendment.
Count Four predicate acts in pattern of corrupt activity	Indictment failed to specify predicate acts or enterprise for R.C. 2923.32(A)(1).	Bill of particulars later identified predicate acts; adequate notice.	Indictment deemed sufficient; bill of particulars provided predicate acts.
Conflict of interest / ineffective assistance	Attorney also represented a co-defendant with conflicting interests; ineffective assistance.	No showing that conflict affected Thomas's representation; no prejudice shown.	No reversible conflict; assignments of error overruled.

State v. Hoffman, 141 Ohio St.3d 428 (2014) ( Ohio and U.S. search-and-seizure protections aligned)
State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) ( Fourth Amendment protections interpreted similarly to Ohio)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (mixed questions of law and fact in suppression rulings)
State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (probable cause standard and deference to magistrate)
U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
State v. Urdiales, 2015-Ohio-3632 (2015) (informant reliability supports probable cause for GPS warrant)
State v. Riley, Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (public observations from public vantage point not a search)
State v. Cook, 2003-Ohio-1794 (2003) (probable cause bases in trash evidence and surveillance)
State v. Shindler, 1994 (1994) (issues properly raised; waiver rule in appellate review)
State v. Jenkins, 2010-Ohio-5943 (2010) ( Fourth Amendment protections and home surveillance)