2014 Ohio 3380
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Police received a tip from a confidential informant that Charles Z. Thompson was selling heroin from 10 Stephens St., Apt. 2.
- Detectives conducted a controlled buy: the informant was searched, given photocopied buy money, observed enter the building, then returned with a plastic bag of tan powder that field-tested positive for heroin.
- Officer Horton prepared an affidavit dated January 15, 2013 stating the buy occurred “within the past few days,” and verifying Thompson as the tenant of Apt. 2.
- A warrant based on that affidavit was issued and executed two days later; police found heroin, marijuana, paraphernalia, and a handgun.
- Thompson moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit failed to establish the informant’s reliability and was stale; the trial court denied suppression.
- Thompson pleaded no contest, was convicted on multiple counts, sentenced to four years, and appealed solely on the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search Apt. 2 | Warrant supported: informant was reliable and the controlled buy plus officer corroboration established a fair probability of contraband | Horton’s affidavit failed to show informant reliability and failed to fix the date of the buy, so information was stale and insufficient for probable cause | Denied; totality of circumstances (controlled buy, officer observation, field test, residency check) provided substantial basis for issuing the warrant |
| Whether the affidavit showed timely (non-stale) information | N/A (State argued timeliness through “within the past few days” plus ongoing activity language) | The affidavit’s vague timing prevented the issuing judge from determining the information was not stale | Denied; language showing recent buy and that defendant “has been selling heroin” supported timeliness given the crime and objects sought |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant veracity and basis of knowledge)
- State v. Davis, 166 Ohio App.3d 468 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (affidavit insufficient where affiant did not personally observe the critical acts and informant’s reliability was not established)
- State v. Jones, 72 Ohio App.3d 522 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (affidavit must show information is timely; staleness analyzed case-by-case)