[W]e concur with the trial court’s analysis. Mr. Middleton has not presented any evidence that the affidavit contains any false or purposeful misrepresentation of information.
State v. Middleton
2024 – Ohio – 5172
Seventh District Appellate Court
Columbiana County, Ohio
October 28, 2024
Why is the Case Important?
This case decision evaluates two critical legal doctrines; (1) Is information on a suspects Computerized Criminal History [CCH] establish if a law enforcement ‘knows’ the suspect was arrested or convicted of a crime? (2) Does “Any and All Controlled Substances” on a search warrant affidavit that excludes specifically identifying marijuana include marijuana?
Post Office – Redding, California and Five Pounds of Marijuana
In the summer of 2021, the Columbiana County Drug Task Force (hereinafter “CCDTF”) began investigating Mr. Ronald Middleton after receiving a tip from a postal worker of Mr. Middleton sending large sums of cash to Redding, California and in turn receiving large packages with a marijuana odor from Redding, California. A package addressed to Mr. Middleton was intercepted by the Drug Enforcement Agency (hereinafter “DEA”) and a federal search warrant was issued to open the package; over five pounds of marijuana was discovered inside.
On August 24, 2021, Detective Jordan Reynolds with the CCDTF obtained a search warrant to search Mr. Middleton’s residence at 935 West Pidgeon Road, Salem, Ohio for drugs and evidence of drug trafficking. As a result of the search, on October 12, 2022, the Columbiana Grand Jury indicted Mr. Middleton for possession of marijuana in violation of O.R.C. §2925.11 with a forfeiture specification.
Detective Jordan Reynolds with the CCDTF obtained a search warrant to search Mr. Middleton’s residence at 935 West Pidgeon Road, Salem, Ohio for drugs and evidence of drug trafficking. The submitted affidavit would be subject to Mr. Middleton’s conviction and appeal.
Motion to Suppress is Denied
On March 30, 2023, Mr. Middleton filed a motion to suppress evidence under seal due to containing sensitive information. Mr. Middleton argued the firsthand knowledge asserted by Detective Reynolds in his affidavit to secure the search warrant regarding Mr. Middleton’s criminal history was false or made with reckless disregard for its accuracy; therefore, those statements could not be considered in the determination of probable cause to issue the warrant. Mr. Middleton also argued there was a lack of probable cause to issue the warrant. A hearing was held on May 1, 2023. By judgment entry filed June 1, 2023, the trial court denied the motion, finding the affidavit was proper and probable cause was sufficient to issue the search warrant.
On February 20, 2024, Mr. Middleton pled no contest to the amended charge of illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of O.R.C. §2925.14. By judgment entry filed February 28, 2024, the trial court found Mr. Middleton guilty and imposed a $100 fine.
Appeal
Did the Search Warrant Affidavit Establish Probable Cause?
In determining the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit submitted for a , a trial judge or magistrate “is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). As a reviewing court, our duty is to ensure that the issuing tribunal had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. We must accord great deference to that decision. Illinois at 236. The totality of the circumstances must be examined in determining whether probable cause existed for a . Id. at 238. “Probable cause” means “‘only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity.'” Id. at 235, quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969).
Mr. Middleton challenges the residence search warrant. He argues the affidavit to obtain the warrant was insufficient, there was a lack of probable cause to issue the warrant, and the warrant was overbroad.
Established Case Law
In order for a challenger to attack an affidavit to a search warrant:
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 v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978).
Must an Affiant have First-Hand Knowledge of Previous Convictions OR is Information Contained on a CCH Valid?
In the affidavit, Detective Reynolds averred: “Affiant knows that Mr. Middleton Jr. has a violent and drug-related criminal history, including . . . . Affidavit, attached to April 5, 2023 State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence as State’s Exhibit 1 at ¶ 10, filed under seal. Mr. Middleton argues “[A]ffiant knows” of his criminal history is a false statement because Detective Reynolds merely ran a criminal history check and listed offenses “without knowing first-hand what happened or the final disposition.” Mr. Middleton argues the affidavit gives the impression Detective Reynolds had firsthand knowledge of his criminal history which “was made with reckless disregard of its accuracy.” Id. Mr. Middleton argues “even if this was not a reckless misrepresentation of the facts, it was an improper inference by the officer that a CCH printout was the equivalent of having firsthand knowledge of an individual’s violent criminal history with firearms and assaults.”Id. at 8.
Mr. Middleton’s Criminal History
Detective Reynolds testified he “listed the criminal history as it was listed on the printout provided by dispatch.”May 1, 2023 Criminal histories “are handled by BCI, which is a portion of LEADS. The LEADS portion is handled by the Highway Patrol. It gives us a detailed list of things that the – – that a subject – – a person subject to investigation could have been charged with in the past.” Id. at 13-14. The state produced Mr. Middleton’s computerized criminal history which Detective Reynolds agreed was a “fair and accurate depiction of the criminal history” he reviewed when he requested the search warrant. Id. at 14; Detective Reynolds listed Mr. Middleton’s criminal history he submitted in the affidavit and testified those are the same charges contained in Mr. Middleton’s criminal history. Id. at 15. Detective Reynolds never stated Mr. Middleton was convicted of the crimes, just “that I know he has a criminal history pertaining to the charges leveled against him.” Id. at 16, 28. On cross-examination, Detective Reynolds explained he was “just relaying the information from the criminal history to the affidavit.” Id. at 23. His “knowledge” comes from reading the criminal history. Id.
In denying Mr. Middleton’s motion to suppress, the trial court found he did not meet his burden under Franks. See June 1, 2023. The trial court found Mr. Middleton “has not made a substantial preliminary showing that Detective Reynolds made a false statement in his affidavit or any statement that was in reckless disregard of the truth.” Id. The trial court reviewed the printout of Mr. Middleton’s criminal history and found Detective Reynolds “correctly and truthfully recites this past criminal history. He does not embellish it in an effort to mislead or deceive.” Id. The trial court found there was “no showing that his use of the word ‘knows’ in connection with a recitation of the Defendant’s past criminal record was critical to the finding of probable cause.” Id.
Seventh District Upholds Trial Court’s Decision to Deny Motion to Suppress
In reviewing the affidavit and Detective Reynolds’s testimony, we concur with the trial court’s analysis. Mr. Middleton has not presented any evidence that the affidavit contains any false or purposeful misrepresentation of information. Affiant stated he “knows” because he obtained the information from a printout of Mr. Middleton’s criminal history maintained by at least two governmental agencies. Affidavits must be tested and interpreted by tribunals “in a commonsense and realistic fashion.” United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 (1965). “They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area.” Id.
Mr. Middleton did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Detective Reynolds submitted statements that were deliberate falsehoods or a reckless disregard for the truth.
Did the Search Warrant Establish Probable Cause?
Established Case Law
“[P]robable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant’s own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 165.
Mr. Middleton argues the search warrant lacked probable cause because it was based solely on the anonymous tip from a postal worker, an opened package containing marijuana addressed to Mr. Middleton’s address, but never delivered, and a dead marijuana grow observed at the address in 2012.
Review of the Facts
A review of the affidavit establishes in 2012, when responding to a trespass complaint at the subject residence, Detective Reynolds personally observed a grow room in the basement with dead marijuana plants and devices used to grow marijuana. In 2021, an anonymous postal worker reported Mr. Middleton sending large sums of cash to Redding, California and in turn receiving large packages with a marijuana odor from Redding, California on numerous occasions. Mr. Middleton was the target of an investigation by the CCDTF and the DEA. A package addressed to Mr. Middleton was intercepted and a federal search warrant was issued to open the package; over five pounds of marijuana was discovered inside.
Court Concludes that Probable Cause was Established
Based upon the totality of the circumstances as set forth in the affidavit, we find the trial court had a substantial basis for concluding there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found at Mr. Middleton’s residence; therefore, probable cause existed to issue the search warrant.
Was the Search Warrant Overbroad?
Mr. Middleton argues the search warrant at issue lacks the particularity required by the Fourth Amendment as set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Castagnola, 2015-Ohio-1565. The particularity requirement “guards against general searches that leave to the unguided discretion of the officers executing the warrant the decision as to what items may be seized.” United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir. 1990). Castagnola reviewed a search warrant seeking to search files on a computer. The warrant sought “records and documents” stored on a number of digital devices. Id. at ¶ 76. In finding the warrant invalid, the Court held the purpose of the particularity requirement was to guide and control the judgment of the seizing officer and to avoid overly broad seizures. Id. at ¶ 79. In its consideration of the warrant against the Constitution’s particularity requirement, the Court held the warrant did not guide or control the analyst’s discretion as to what was to be seized on the computer, allowing the analyst to look at all the evidence on the hard drive to determine what to seize. Id. at ¶ 83.
Next, the Court found the broad language of the warrant included items that were not subject to seizure. Id. at ¶ 84. The state argued “‘nothing in the record suggests that the police knew ahead of time precisely where or on which devices those items were stored.’” Id. at ¶ 85. The Court held the particularity issue did not relate “to where the information was stored but rather ‘what’ evidence the detective had a fair probability of believing existed” on the computer. Id. The Court determined the search warrant lacked particularity and was therefore invalid. Id. at ¶ 90.
Does “Any and All Controlled Substances” that Excludes Specifically Identifying Marijuana Include Marijuana?
Mr. Middleton argues the search warrant in his case was less particular than the one in Castagnola. He points out the warrant’s affidavit mentions an investigation involving marijuana, but the warrant did not list marijuana. It listed “[A]ny and all controlled substances and suspected controlled substances, including Methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, any and all electronic devices, including cellular phones, computers, PDA’s, and any other evidence of drug abuse and/or drug trafficking.” Affidavit, attached to April 5, 2023 State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence as State’s Exhibit 1, filed under seal. In support of his argument, Mr. Middleton cites the cases of State v. Casey, 2004-Ohio-5789 (7th Dist.) and State v. Dalpiaz, 2002- Ohio-7346 (11th Dist.).
Casey was a state’s appeal after the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The police investigation involved crack cocaine, yet the warrant permitted a search for “drugs of abuse as defined by O.R.C. 3719.011(A)” which includes a broad and vague laundry list of items. Casey at ¶ 15. The court determined the state “should have been more particular in describing the items to be seized in the affidavit and search warrant.” Id. The court stated search warrants should not permit fishing expeditions for contraband nor should they “simply contain the same cookie-cutter language used in every warrant.” Id. But the court went on to conclude since the police would have discovered the challenged evidence during their search for crack cocaine, the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence. Id. at ¶ 30.
In Dalpiaz, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The police investigation involved marijuana, yet the warrant did not mention marijuana and authorized police to seize “‘[A]ny drug processing, making, manufacturing, producing, transporting, delivering, processing, storing, distributing, selling, using, or other-wise dealing with a controlled substance, and all other fruits and instrumentalities of the crime at the present time unknown.'” Dalpiaz at ¶ 29. It further provided for the seizure of “‘any and all evidence pertaining to violations of the drug laws of the State of Ohio; Ohio Revised Code, and all other fruits and instrumentalities of the crime at the present time unknown.'” Id. In reversing the trial court, the court determined “the scope of the warrant was so broad that it permitted police officers to seize any evidence relating to a violation of the drug laws of Ohio. This court views this laundry list approach to search warrants as an unacceptable impingement upon an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights.”
In denying Mr. Middleton’s supplemental motion to suppress, the trial court distinguished the cases of Castagnola, Casey, and Dalpiaz. See Judgment Entry filed February 8, 2024. The trial court found the search warrant in Castagnola was unlike the Mr. Middleton search warrant. The trial court found the Mr. Middleton search warrant authorized the search and seizure of items related to the crimes being investigated i.e., possession of drugs and/or trafficking in drugs; the search warrant “was tailored and particular.” Although the search warrant did not specifically list marijuana, the trial court found it identified “the specific illegal activity to which the items to be seized relate: ‘[t]he transportation, ordering, purchasing, and distribution of controlled substances.'” Id. The trial court noted in 2021, marijuana was a controlled substance. Id. The items to be seized “were directly linked to the alleged criminal activity under investigation.” Id. The trial court found unlike Casey, the Mr. Middleton warrant did not “impermissibly authorize a generalized, exploratory search” as it “reasonably guided and limited the discretion of the executing officers and provided sufficient specificity regarding the items sought.” As for the Dalpiaz search warrant, the trial court found it contained “an extensive and vague laundry list of items” which “had no identified nexus to the alleged criminal drug activity under investigation,” unlike the Mr. Middleton warrant.
The Affidavit Established Probable Cause
We concur with the trial court’s analysis. Detective Reynolds’s affidavit contains numerous facts to support his belief that Mr. Middleton was engaging in drug-related activity, including drug trafficking. As stated above, the affidavit stated an anonymous postal worker reported Mr. Middleton sending large sums of cash to Redding, California and in turn receiving large packages with a marijuana odor from Redding, California on numerous occasions. Mr. Middleton was the target of an investigation by the CCDTF and the DEA and a package addressed to Mr. Middleton was intercepted and opened and over five pounds of marijuana was discovered inside. The search warrant authorized law enforcement to search “[A]ny and all controlled substances and suspected controlled substances, including Methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, any and all electronic devices, including cellular phones, computers, PDA’s, and any other evidence of drug abuse and/or drug trafficking.”Marijuana falls under “controlled substances.” The items subject to search and seizure related to the crimes being investigated i.e., possession of drugs and/or trafficking in drugs; the items were sufficiently identified.
We disagree with Mr. Middleton’s argument that the search warrant was overbroad and invalid due to lack of particularity.
Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Middleton’s motions to suppress.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Middleton, 2024 – Ohio – 5172 and the Columbiana County Clerks of Courts.
State v. Middleton, 2024 – Ohio – 5172 was issued by the Seventh District Appellate Court on October 28, 2024 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Harrison, Jefferson, Mahoning, Monroe and Noble.
Lessons Learned:
- Is information on a suspects Computerized Criminal History [CCH] establish if a law enforcement ‘knows’ the suspect was arrested or convicted of a crime? Middleton argued “[A]ffiant knows” of his criminal history is a false statement because Detective Reynolds merely ran a criminal history check and listed offenses “without knowing first-hand what happened or the final disposition.” Mr. Middleton argues the affidavit gives the impression Detective Reynolds had firsthand knowledge of his criminal history which “was made with reckless disregard of its accuracy.”. Ultimately the court held “[W]e concur with the trial court’s analysis. Mr. Middleton has not presented any evidence that the affidavit contains any false or purposeful misrepresentation of information. Affiant stated he “knows” because he obtained the information from a printout of Mr. Middleton’s criminal history maintained by at least two governmental agencies.”. Law enforcement should also cross-check all information on the CCH to assure that it is valid.
- Reckless Disregard for the Truth – Every search warrant affidavit must establish probable to search. The Good Faith Doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984 held that if a search warrant is later found to be based on something less than probable cause the officer would have acted in ‘good faith’ and the search warrant will be upheld. There are, however, four exceptions to the Good Faith Doctrine: 1) The issuing magistrate was misled by information in the affiant [law enforcement officer] knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth. 2) Where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role and failed to act in a neutral and detached fashion, serving merely as a rubber stamp for the police. 3) Where the affidavit was nothing more than a ‘bare bones’ affidavit that did not provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause. 4) Where the officer’s reliance on the warrant was not in good faith or objectively reasonable, such as where the warrant was facially deficient. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) In this case Mr. Middleton feebly argued that the first exception to the Good Faith Doctrine was met because Detective Jordan Reynolds did not have firsthand knowledge of Mr. Middleton’s previous drug arrests and convictions. Reynolds information was obtained from Mr. Middleton’s CCH and since the information was a computerized history it was a ‘reckless disregard for the truth’. This argument was rejected by the court and law enforcement may use CCH information without being challenged as making a false allegation on a sworn affidavit.
- Does “Any and All Controlled Substances” on a search warrant affidavit that excludes specifically identifying marijuana include marijuana? There was a substantive number of established cases that explained not every narcotic must be listed in an affidavit by name. The ‘any and all controlled substances’ is sufficient enough for the admissibility of the narcotic found at the location of the search warrant. The Seventh District Appellate Court held “[T]he Mr. Middleton warrant did not “impermissibly authorize a generalized, exploratory search” as it “reasonably guided and limited the discretion of the executing officers and provided sufficient specificity regarding the items sought.”. From a common sense standpoint, it is unreasonable to list every description of contraband later found during a search in the search warrant affidavit. Courts will be cautious that affidavits are not overly broad, meaning that the affidavit is not a catch-all. This was THE reason the ‘Particularity’ clause is part of the Fourth Amendment.
- Pre-Sent Arms! The Columbiana County Drug Task Force and Detective Jordan Reynolds should be highly commended for their work on Mr. Middleton’s narcotic investigation. Well done!
Does your agency train on Search Warrants?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!