State v. Willard, 2013 Ohio 3001

On July 23, 2010, three minor nephews (ages 9, 13, 16) reported that defendant Christopher Willard showed them pornographic images/videos on computers at his Lakewood residence; written statements were taken from the children.
Detective Brian Berardi prepared an affidavit (March 11, 2011) describing the children's statements and Willard’s prior conviction for pandering obscenity involving a minor, and sought a warrant to search Willard’s residence for electronic storage devices.
A common pleas judge issued the warrant; police executed it March 14, 2011, seizing computers and storage devices. Forensic review revealed child pornography files.
Willard was indicted on 21 counts (disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor, minor in nude material, possession of criminal tools, etc.). He moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the affidavit was stale and lacked probable cause; the trial court denied the motion.
Willard pled no contest to all counts, received community control, and appealed the denial of the suppression motion. The court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Willard)	Held
Whether affidavit was stale / lacked probable cause to search residence for electronic storage devices	Affidavit provided timely and sufficient facts (children’s written statements, detective’s training, prior conviction) to establish a fair probability that evidence would be on computers in the home	The alleged conduct occurred ~8 months before the warrant; information was stale and did not show ongoing activity or a fair probability evidence remained at the premises	Court: Probable cause existed; staleness not fatal because images are non-perishable, may remain on computers long-term, and sexual offenses involving minors are often continuing in nature; affidavit provided substantial basis for judge’s conclusion
Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying suppression based on its comments about deference to issuing magistrate	Trial court properly applied the State v. George totality-of-the-circumstances standard and limited review to the four corners of the affidavit	Trial court allegedly relied on decorum/deference rather than facts and law; statement about reluctance to overturn warrants was improper	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court’s brief remarks did not reflect abdication of its duty and the record shows proper legal review

State v. Young, 146 Ohio App.3d 245 (Ohio App. 2001) (magistrate may issue warrant only upon finding of probable cause)
State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1989) (reviewing court must determine whether issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed; totality-of-the-circumstances test)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception and deference to magistrate’s probable-cause determination)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause determined under the totality-of-the-circumstances)
State v. Yanowitz, 67 Ohio App.2d 141 (Ohio App. 1979) (issuing judge confined to affidavit’s averments; staleness analyzed by circumstances)
State v. Hollis, 98 Ohio App.3d 549 (Ohio App. 1994) (affidavit must present timely information; staleness depends on nature of crime and items sought)