2020 Ohio 4168
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Rossford officers detected a strong odor of raw marijuana near 155 Superior and traced it to a boarded storefront (155/155½ Superior).
- Officers entered the rear yard through a gate, found a rear door that could be nudged open a few inches, observed interior signs of habitation and grow equipment, then exited to consult supervisors.
- Appellant Kayla Wallace declined consent to search; officers later prepared an affidavit noting the odor, a neighbor’s report of an ongoing odor for 2–3 weeks, and details from the brief warrantless entry.
- A search warrant was issued and executed around 11:00 p.m.; police seized items consistent with a grow operation and charged Wallace.
- Trial court found the initial curtilage/entry unconstitutional but concluded the affidavit (excluding tainted facts) still supported probable cause; Wallace pleaded no contest, was convicted, and appealed the denial of her suppression motion.
- The Sixth District reversed: it held the untainted affidavit lacked a sufficient nexus linking the marijuana odor to the particular place searched, and the Leon good-faith exception did not save the evidence given the officers’ unreasonable conduct.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Wallace's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the odor of raw marijuana alone can establish probable cause to search a residence | Odor of raw marijuana can create probable cause, especially if strong | Odor alone is never sufficient to support a home search | Odor can support probable cause in some circumstances, but here odor alone (after excluding tainted observations) did not establish a nexus to the particular place searched; warrant lacked probable cause |
| Whether the warrant affidavit (excluding facts from the unlawful entry) provided probable cause | Remaining facts (odor, neighbor report, Wallace’s suspicious behavior) were sufficient | Affidavit lacked facts linking the odor to the interior of the residence or a particular place on the property | Affidavit failed to connect the odor to the specific place to be searched; probable cause lacking |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not seeking a Franks hearing to challenge alleged false or omitted statements in the affidavit | Not applicable (State) | Trial counsel should have requested a Franks hearing based on alleged inconsistencies/omissions | Not ineffective: appellant did not make the substantial preliminary showing required to trigger a Franks hearing |
| Whether the Leon good-faith exception salvages evidence seized under the subsequently issued warrant | Officers reasonably relied on the warrant; property appeared abandoned so good faith applies | Officers’ conduct was unreasonable (signs of habitation) and warrant was sought after an unlawful entry; good faith does not apply | Good-faith exception does not apply; officers’ belief that property was abandoned was unreasonable and the warrant was used to legitimize an earlier unlawful search |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Franks hearing standard for deliberate or reckless falsehoods in warrant affidavits)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause judged by "fair probability" standard)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to unlawful searches)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (probable cause requires nexus to the place to be searched)