State v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 31 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14CA010593.,14CA010593. |
| Citation | 37 N.E.3d 1288 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Appellant v. Tyrone JACKSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Dennis P. Will, Prosecuting Attorney, and Natasha Ruiz Guerrieri, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellant.
Joseph P. Morse, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, granting Appellee, Tyrone Jackson's, motion to suppress. This Court affirms.
{¶ 2} After receiving a tip from an informant, members of the Cuyahoga County Sheriff Department's Narcotics Unit began investigating Tara Bell. Ms. Bell's activities ultimately led the police to secure a warrant for the search of her home. The fruits of the search led to a discussion between Ms. Bell and members of the Narcotics Unit. According to the State, Ms. Bell agreed to become a confidential informant and to aid the Narcotics Unit in investigating her associate, Mr. Jackson. Ms. Bell informed the police that she and Mr. Jackson had each purchased a large amount of drugs from different suppliers in Detroit. She also told them that Mr. Jackson had agreed to hold onto the heroin she had purchased there until she contacted him.
{¶ 3} On the same day that the police searched her home, Ms. Bell called Mr. Jackson and arranged to meet him at his house to pick up her heroin. Members of the Narcotics Unit outfitted her with a wire in preparation for her meeting with Mr. Jackson. Ms. Bell then drove to Mr. Jackson's home on Bellfield Avenue, parked outside, and waited in her car. One member of the Narcotics Unit watched as Mr. Jackson came out of his house with a bag and handed the bag to Ms. Bell through the window of her car. The contents of the bag later tested positive for heroin.
{¶ 4} Believing that Mr. Jackson had more controlled substances in his possession, the Narcotics Unit sought a warrant for the search of his home. Detective Vito Monteleone served as the affiant for the warrant. In his affidavit, Detective Monteleone averred that a confidential informant (Ms. Bell) had informed the Narcotics Unit that Mr. Jackson sold narcotics out of his home on Bellfield Avenue. He further averred that the confidential informant had agreed to “purchase heroin and pills from [Mr.] Jackson,” so the Narcotics Unit had arranged for a “controlled purchase.” According to Detective Monteleone's affidavit, the confidential informant “ordered a quantity of heroin from [Mr.] Jackson” on the phone before driving to his home. Detective Monteleone averred that the confidential informant received a bag from Mr. Jackson before Mr. Jackson reentered his home. He further averred that the confidential informant then “handed over a quantity of suspected heroin and pills” to the Narcotics Unit and field testing confirmed the presence of heroin.
{¶ 5} A judge issued a search warrant for Mr. Jackson's home on the basis of the averments contained in Detective Monteleone's affidavit. The Narcotics Unit then searched Mr. Jackson's house and discovered a variety of contraband, including narcotics and several guns. A grand jury indicted Mr. Jackson on two counts of drug trafficking, four counts of possession, one count of drug paraphernalia, and one count of having weapons under disability.
{¶ 6} Mr. Jackson filed a motion to suppress on several grounds. Relevant to this appeal, he challenged the warrant for the search of his home on the basis that Detective Monteleone's affidavit contained either deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for their truth. Mr. Jackson later learned of Ms. Bell's identity as the confidential informant referenced in the affidavit and supplemented his motion to suppress with an affidavit from Ms. Bell. In her affidavit, Ms. Bell averred that she never agreed to cooperate with the police or to participate in a “controlled purchase/pick-up” from Mr. Jackson. She further averred that she never “provided statements regarding [Mr.] Jackson to law enforcement.” The State responded in opposition to Mr. Jackson's motion, and the court held a hearing on the matter.
{¶ 7} The trial court found that Detective Monteleone's affidavit contained either deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court further determined that, once it removed the offending statements from the affidavit, the affidavit did not contain sufficient information to warrant a finding of probable cause and to justify the issuance of a warrant for a search of Mr. Jackson's home on Bellfield Avenue. Consequently, the court granted Mr. Jackson's motion to suppress.
{¶ 8} The State now appeals from the trial court's judgment and raises four assignments of error for our review.
{¶ 9} In its first assignment of error, the State argues that the court erred when it determined that Mr. Jackson was entitled to a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). Specifically, it argues that Mr. Jackson failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that Detective Monteleone's affidavit contained statements that were either deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. We do not agree that the court erred when it found that Mr. Jackson satisfied his Franks burden.
{¶ 10} “There is * * * a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting [a] search warrant.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674. “In Franks v. Delaware * * *, the United States Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of when a defendant, under the Fourth Amendment, is entitled to a hearing to challenge the veracity of the facts set forth in the warrant affidavit after the warrant has been issued and executed.” State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d 170, 177, 405 N.E.2d 247 (1980).
To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient.
Franks at 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674. Moreover, “[e]ven if a defendant makes a sufficient preliminary showing, a hearing is not required unless, without the allegedly false statements, the affidavit is unable to support a finding of probable cause.” State v. Cubic, 9th Dist. Medina No. 09CA0005–M, 2009-Ohio-5051, 2009 WL 3068751, ¶ 11, citing Roberts at 178, 405 N.E.2d 247, quoting Franks at 171–172, 98 S.Ct. 2674.
{¶ 11} Mr. Jackson specifically asserted that Detective Monteleone's affidavit contained statements that were either deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. In support of his argument, Mr. Jackson presented the court with an affidavit from Ms. Bell, the confidential informant that Detective Monteleone referenced throughout his affidavit. In her affidavit, Ms. Bell included the following averments:
Mr. Jackson argued that Ms. Bell's affidavit drew into question whether she, in fact, acted as a confidential informant and provided the police with information about him. Consequently, he argued that he satisfied the preliminary showing required by Franks in order to obtain a hearing.
{¶ 12} The State argues that Mr. Jackson was not entitled to a Franks hearing because he did not specifically point out the allegedly false portions of Detective Monteleone's affidavit. The trial court correctly determined, however, that Mr. Jackson satisfied his Franks burden.
{¶ 13} Mr. Jackson supported his motion with the affidavit of Ms. Bell and his allegations went beyond mere negligence or innocent mistake. See Franks at 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674. In her affidavit, Ms. Bell specifically averred that she never provided the police with any statements about Mr. Jackson and never agreed to participate in a “controlled purchase/pick-up.” It is indisputable that Detective Monteleone's affidavit rested heavily upon the intelligence his department allegedly received from Ms. Bell and her participation in their investigation of Mr. Jackson. Accordingly, her averments that she did not provide the police with any intelligence or agree to aid them in their investigation of Mr. Jackson drew a significant portion of his affidavit into question. Although Mr. Jackson did not initially identify the allegedly false portions of Detective Monteleone's affidavit by paragraph number,1 his allegations were far from conclusory. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that Mr. Jackson's allegations and evidence brought into question Ms. Bell's “actions and conduct with [Mr. Jackson] and with the police agencies * * *.” The statements in her affidavit directly conflicted with the statements in Detective Monteleone's affidavit, such that only one set of statements could be true. Accordingly, the court did not err by finding that Mr. Jackson made a sufficient preliminary showing under Franks. See Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d at 177, 405 N.E.2d 247, quoting Franks at 155–156, 98 S.Ct. 2674.
{¶ 14} Notably, “[e]ven if a defendant makes a sufficient preliminary showing [under Franks ], a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lazzerini
... ... STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {2} Appellant became a licensed physician in Ohio in 2008. He opened Premier Family Practice in Massillon, Ohio, in 2012. Appellant was the sole practitioner at his general family practice. After an investigation into Appellant's medical practice by the Jackson Township Police Department, the Ohio Board of Pharmacy, the Ohio Attorney General's Office, the Ohio Medical Board, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, a search warrant was executed at Premiere Family Practice on February 17, 2016. {3} The investigation revealed Appellant was running what is known as ... ...
-
State v. Schubert
... ... We disagree. In State v. Jackson , Ninth Dist. App. No. 14CA100953, 2015-Ohio-3520 [37 N.E.3d 1288], the Ninth District held, "There is * * * a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting [a] search warrant." Franks [v. Delaware] , 438 U.S. [154] at 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674 [57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)]. "In Franks v ... ...
-
State v. Bingham
... ... , citing Gates ... {18} " There is * * * a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting [a] search warrant. " State v. Jackson , 9th Dist. Lorain, 2015-Ohio-3520, 37 N.E.3d 1288, 10, quoting Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). However, search-warrant affidavits are not unassailable. To attack the integrity of a search-warrant affidavit, a defendant must first "make[ ] a ... ...
-
State v. Henderson
... ... 27576, 2015-Ohio-2135, 2015 WL 3498640, 10, quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238-239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). "Courts should give great deference to the determination of probable cause made by the judge or magistrate who issued the search warrant." State v. Jackson , 9th Dist. Summit No. 28691, 2018-Ohio-1285, 2018 WL 1659545, 16, quoting Myers at 10. The applicable standard of review is as follows: In reviewing the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant issued by a magistrate, neither a trial court nor an ... ...