State v. Fant
| Decision Date | 10 August 1977 |
| Citation | 53 Ohio App.2d 87,371 N.E.2d 588 |
| Parties | , 7 O.O.3d 58 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. FANT, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Criminal procedure Search warrants Warrant invalid, when Informant not brought before issuing judge; affidavit lists no facts to determine credibility of affiant's information source.
Where an informant named in an affidavit for a search warrant was not brought before the issuing judge and no specific reasons or factors exist in such affidavit providing a substantial basis for determining the credibility of the affiant's source of information, the warrant is invalid.
Simon L. Leis, Jr., Pros. Atty., Thomas P. Longano and Robert Holzman, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Bernard J. Gilday, Jr. and Leslie I. Gaines, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellant.
This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal; the transcript of the docket, journal entries and original papers from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County; and the transcript of the proceedings, the briefs, and the assignments of error and the arguments of counsel.
On January 21, 1976, two police officers armed with a search warrant entered the appellant's residence. The search warrant authorized the taking of heroin and related packaging materials. The officers recovered 34.4 grams of heroin from the residence and also two revolvers and ammunition from a bedroom cupboard. They arrested appellant and subsequently charged him with one count of the possession of a narcotic drug for sale and one count of having weapons while under disability. The search warrant was not returned until January 31, 1976, ten days after its execution. Following the denial of appellant's motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the count of having weapons while under disability, appellant pled no contest to each charge and was found guilty as to each. Appellant now asserts two assignments of error based on the lower court's overruling of those motions.
The first assignment of error with which we shall deal is appellant's assertion that the trial court erred in denying appellant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence. One of the issues that appellant raises in support of this assignment is that the affidavit for the search warrant was defective. The affidavit stated:
Appellant contends that since nothing appeared on the face of the affidavit to indicate that the "concerned citizen" did appear before the signing judge, the affidavit is facially defective, because the reliability and credibility of such "concerned citizen" is not otherwise established. We agree.
Crim.R. 41(C) states, in pertinent part:
Compliance with Crim.R. 41(C), in cases such as this which involves...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rabbitt v. Leonard
...... first, § 15, of the Connecticut constitution which provides that "(e)very citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." This case appears to be one of first impression in Connecticut. The question itself, however, is not new and has been decided in the negative ... Carson v. State, 241 Ga. 622, 247 S.E.2d 68: See also State v. Fant, 53 Ohio App.2d 87, 371 . Page 491. N.E.2d 588; Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 826, 828; People v. Dubose, 42 Cal.App.3d 847, 117 ......
-
State v. Pauley
......United States (1980), 445 U.S. 55, 65-66, fn. 8 4, 100 S.Ct. 915, 920-921, fn. 8, 63 L.Ed.2d 198; Mosher v. Dayton (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 243, 247-248, 358 N.E.2d 540 [2 O.O.3d 412]; State v. Fant (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 87, 90, 371 N.E.2d 588 [7 O.O.3d 58]. Considering a section of the Omnibus Crime Control Act 5 that parallels some of the objectives in R.C. 2923.13, the United States Supreme Court said the "concept of equal protection" required only that the legislative classification have ......
-
State v. Winkelman
...4, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. United States v. Miller (1939), 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206; State v. Fant (1977), 53 Ohio App.2d 87, 90, 37 N.E.2d 588 . Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated: " * * * The constitution contains no prohibition against the legislature......
-
State v. Robert L. Mitchell
...... to rely on some form of self help. The statute itself. recognizes no such exception as is suggested here by. defendant to its general admonition that no one under. disability shall have, acquire or use any firearm or. dangerous ordnance. See, State v. Fant, 53 Ohio App. 2d 87. (1977). We reject assignment of error four. . . IV. . . A. plain reading of R.C. 2923.13 suggests only that the word. "knowingly" applies to those verb forms immediately. following: "acquire, have, carry or ......