2013 Ohio 4872
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Police received CI information that Winningham trafficked marijuana, traveled to Chicago regularly, and used a truck with a hidden compartment. Officers surveilled him and obtained a warrant to install a GPS tracker on his truck for 30 days.
- After the initial 30-day warrant expired without a triggering trip, officers obtained a second 30-day warrant; the affidavit added that a civil matter had kept Winningham local but was now resolved and he would likely travel for a shipment soon.
- The GPS alerted officers when Winningham left the Cincinnati area; he traveled to Chicago, stayed ~6–8 hours, returned, and was stopped on reentry to Ohio.
- A drug dog alerted to contraband in the truck bed; officers found hidden marijuana under a carpet.
- Winningham was convicted of trafficking and possession; this court previously upheld conviction without a warrant for the GPS placement but the Ohio Supreme Court remanded after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones requiring a warrant for GPS attachment.
- On remand the trial court denied Winningham’s supplemental motion to suppress; this appeal challenges that denial, arguing stale information, Crim.R. 41 timing defects, and that suppression is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second warrant lacked probable cause because it relied on stale information | Second warrant was supported: CI history plus new explanation that civil matter prevented travel and now travel would occur | Second warrant relied on the same, now-stale information used for the first warrant and so could not support probable cause | Court held probable cause existed: the affidavit supplied new, timely information explaining the lapse and predicting imminent travel, curing staleness |
| Whether Crim.R. 41’s 3-day execution rule rendered the 30-day GPS warrants defective and required suppression | Rule’s 3-day requirement was violated by 30-day monitoring and delayed search, so evidence must be excluded | Any rule violation was non-fundamental; GPS installation complied with Crim.R. 41 (device installed within 3 days), and later search was supported by probable cause independent of the warrant | Court held any Crim.R. 41 issue was non-fundamental and did not mandate suppression; no prejudice or deliberate rule-flouting found |
| Whether the subsequent search of the vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment without a valid warrant | If the warrants failed, the vehicle search was tainted and evidence should be suppressed | Independent probable cause existed—trip to Chicago, short stay, known hidden compartment, and dog alert—justifying stop and search without a warrant | Court held officers had sufficient probable cause to stop and search the vehicle on return, so suppression was not required |
| Whether suppression is the proper remedy for any procedural defects | Enforcement of Crim.R. 41 requires exclusion of evidence when violated | Exclusionary rule applies only for fundamental (constitutional) violations or prejudice/deliberate disregard of the rule | Court denied suppression: exclusionary rule inapplicable because no constitutional violation or prejudicial/deliberate rule breach |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (attaching a GPS device to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a practical, common-sense determination; review affords deference to magistrate)
- State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989) (Ohio standard of review for probable-cause affidavits; great deference to issuing judge)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule protects Fourth Amendment rights through deterrence)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (exclusionary rule is a judicial remedy, not a personal constitutional right)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) (Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170 (1980) (challenges to affidavit veracity require an offer of proof specifying alleged falsehoods)
- State v. Wilmoth, 22 Ohio St.3d 251 (1986) (Crim.R. 41 violations are "fundamental" only when they rise to constitutional error; suppression required only for fundamental violations or prejudice/deliberate disregard)