In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969), the United States Supreme Court set forth a two-pronged test to determine whether an informant’s tip establishes probable cause to issue a warrant. Under that test, a magistrate must be informed of: (1) The basis of the informant’s knowledge; and (2) Sufficient facts to establish either the informant’s veracity or the reliability of the informant’s information.
State v. Shannon
Fifth District Appellate Court
Knox County, Ohio
April 7, 2025
Background
On December 18, 2023, Mr. Shannon was indicted for two counts of having weapons while under disability, felonies of the third degree in violation of O.R.C. §2923.13(A)(3), one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of O.R.C. §2925.11(A), and one count of possessing criminal tools, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of O.R.C. §2923.24(A). The having weapons while under disability charges each carried a forfeiture specification pursuant to O.R.C. §2941.1417.
On February 9, 2024, Mr. Shannon filed a motion to suppress. On April 25, 2024, an evidentiary hearing was held on the motion. Prior to the start of the hearing, Mr. Shannon agreed that the scope of the evidentiary hearing was limited to “contesting the search warrant and the PC for the search warrant.”.
Confidential Reliable Informant
Knox County Sheriff’s Detective Terry Wolfe testified that he began an investigation of Mr. Shannon around the end of July or beginning of August 2023. During that time, Detective Wolfe received information from a confidential source that Mr. Shannon was transporting drugs from his residence in Columbus to a residence on Howard Street in Mount Vernon, Ohio. Detective Wolfe described the source as one that he “used on multiple occasions [and] that was reliable.” Detective Wolfe testified that he was aware that Mr. Shannon was originally from Mount Vernon, Ohio, and he had family, including a child, living in the Mount Vernon area. Detective Wolfe testified that during his investigation of Mr. Shannon, the detective utilized five confidential informants.
Surveillance and a Fruitless Traffic Stop
Based upon those conversations, Detective Wolfe began watching the residence. Detective Wolfe testified that he did “see signs of drug sells from the residence.” Id. at 9 – 10. Detective Wolfe subsequently made a traffic stop on a car leaving the residence and found drugs inside that car. Id. at 10. Detective Wolfe obtained a description of the vehicle Mr. Shannon was driving; however, during two traffic stops of Mr. Shannon’s vehicle “no narcotics were located.”
Search Warrant and Ping
Detective Wolfe obtained Mr. Shannon’s phone number and applied for a search warrant for the phone. The warrant was granted, and Detective Wolfe began to “ping” Mr. Shannon’s phone to track his movements. Id. at 10-11. He also obtained a GPS warrant for Mr. Shannon’s vehicle, which he executed while Mr. Shannon was attending his weekly visitation with his child in Knox County.
Storage Unit Search Warrant
From the GPS tracker, Detective Wolfe learned Mr. Shannon, while coming to Knox County from Columbus, would stop at one or two storage unit facilities. On November 27, 2023, Detective Wolfe observed Mr. Shannon inside the business part of a storage unit facility talking to a female employee. Id. That employee gave Detective Wolfe “Unit A-020,” as the number of Mr. Shannon’s storage unit, which Mr. Shannon had rented that day. Id. at 14; 16; Affidavit for Warrant to Search, ¶ 21.
Detective Wolfe testified that the storage facility where Mr. Shannon’s unit was located is a private facility, surrounded by an 8 to 10-foot-high fence. Further, the facility is gated, requiring a code or a pass key to enter the property to access the storage units. Id. Detective Wolfe was given the pass code and permission to enter the facility by an employee. Id. at 33.
Was Chuck Presently Armed?
Detective Wolfe further testified that he “had gotten some information from a source who stated that “Chuck was carrying a gun, I believe it was a Smith & Wesson, was what I was told.”
Video Surveillance
Detective Wolfe testified that he placed a camera in a tree looking down onto Mr. Shannon’s storage unit. Id. However, through a series of technical missteps, no video footage of Mr. Shannon entering or leaving the storage unit was obtained or preserved. Id. at 15; 17; 34 – 35. However, Detective Wolfe testified that while watching the live video feed of Mr. Shannon’s storage unit on November 28, 2023, he observed Mr. Shannon place two large duffle bags and “a large case that looked like a gun case” in Unit A-020. Id. at 16.
Canine Alert on Storage Facility
On December 4, 2023, Detective Wolfe asked Knox County Sheriff Deputy Luke Guthrie to run his canine partner “Feyd” around the storage facility. Affidavit for Warrant to Search, ¶ 25. Detective Wolfe did not provide the canine handler Mr. Shannon’s unit number. The dog alerted to the presence of the odor of narcotics outside the closed door of Mr. Shannon’s unit.
Search Warrant on Storage Unit A-020
Detective Wolfe obtained a search warrant for Mr. Shannon’s unit. Inside, he located two firearms, “a Smith & Wesson” and what “appeared to be a long gun,” baggies containing narcotics residue, and drug paraphernalia.
At the conclusion of the hearing Mr. Shannon again told the judge that he was only contesting the “basis for the issuance of the warrant.”
Motion to Suppress is Denied
The trial judge denied Mr. Shannon’s motion to suppress through a Decision and Entry filed April 29, 2024.
No Contest and Forfeiture of Weapons
Mr. Shannon entered a no contest plea to one count of having weapons while under disability, as well as the forfeiture specifications to count one and count two of the indictment. The remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed upon motion of the state. Amended Journal Entry, filed July 17, 2025. Sentencing was deferred and the preparation of a Presentence Investigation Report was ordered. On July 18, 2024, the judge sentenced Mr. Shannon to thirty months in prison on count one of the Indictment and ordered forfeiture of the weapons to the Knox County Sheriff.
Mr. Shannon Appealed that the Search Warrant was based on Reasonable Suspicion and NOT Probable Cause
Mr. Shannon contends that the trial judge erred in not granting his motion to suppress because the affidavit in support of the search warrant, while based upon reasonable suspicion, is not based upon probable cause.
Ohio Criminal Rule 41
In addressing the substance of Mr. Shannon’s assignment of error, we begin with Criminal Rule 41, which governs the issuance and execution of search warrants in Ohio. Subsection (C) of the rule reads, in pertinent part:
(1) A warrant shall issue on either an affidavit or affidavits sworn to before a judge of a court of record or an affidavit or affidavits communicated to the judge by reliable electronic means establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant. In the case of a search warrant, the affidavit shall name or describe the person to be searched or particularly describe the place to be searched, name or describe the property to be searched for and seized, state substantially the offense in relation thereto, and state the factual basis for the affiant’s belief that such property is there located….
(2) If the judge is satisfied that probable cause exists, the judge shall
issue a warrant identifying the property to be seized and naming or describing the person or place to be searched or the person or property to
be tracked…The finding of probable cause may be based upon hearsay in
whole or in part, provided there is a substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual
basis for the information furnished.
Did the Fruitless Traffic Stops Negate Probable Cause?
Mr. Shannon contends that Detective Wolfe’s affidavit was lacking in facts necessary to support a finding of a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the storage locker. He argues that the reliability of Detective Wolfe’s confidential sources “must be seriously questioned” because, based upon those sources, law enforcement in Knox County conducted two traffic stops of Mr. Shannon’s vehicle and found neither drugs or weapons in Mr. Shannon’s possession. Mr. Shannon further contends that Detective Wolfe never actually saw Mr. Shannon in possession of drugs or weapons, only what “looked like” a gun case. Further, no corroborating evidence such as photographs, documents or statements were alluded to in the affidavit, nor did the affidavit state that any confidential source purchased drugs from Mr. Shannon. Id.
Issue for Appellate Review: Whether the record contains a substantial basis for finding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the judge had sufficient
probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in Mr. Shannon’s storage locker
Were the Confidential Sources Reliable?
In the case at bar, the affidavit contained no statements providing indicia of either the veracity of the confidential sources or the basis of their knowledge. We have no idea from the affidavit whether the sources have been proven reliable. Nevertheless, the information contained in paragraph 5 (confidential source #1), paragraphs 8, 10, and 11 (confidential source #2), and paragraph 16 (confidential source #3) of his affidavit provide sufficient grounds for Detective Wolfe to continue to investigate the claims made that Mr. Shannon is bringing drugs from Columbus to Knox County. Further, in paragraph 20 (confidential source #4) states that “Mr. Shannon was carrying a Smith and Wesson 500 handgun on his right hip.” The confidential source personally told Detective Wolfe this information. The level of detail, i.e., the make of the handgun and how Mr. Shannon carries it, implies personal observation or knowledge on the part of the confidential source.
Detective Wolfe in reliance, at least in part, on these statements, obtained two search warrants, the “ping” warrant and a GPS warrant. Mr. Shannon does not contest the legality of these two warrants.
Sources State that Mr. Shannon Delivered Large Amounts of Methamphetamine
Detective Wolfe was able to independently verify parts of the information he had been given by his sources. Detective Wolfe was able to track Mr. Shannon to a residence where confidential source #2 informed him Mr. Shannon had “dropped off a large amount of meth.” Affidavit for Warrant to Search, ¶¶ 11; 19. Further, Detective Wolfe was able to confirm by GPS tracking that Mr. Shannon had been at a residence where confidential source #5 is said to have seen Mr. Shannon deliver “large amounts of methamphetamine.” Id. at ¶ 22.
Ping and Canine Alert
As a result of the information obtained from his sources, the “ping” warrant, and the GPS warrant, Detective Wolfe learned that Mr. Shannon had rented the storage unit A-020. He then set-up video surveillance and observed Mr. Shannon arrive at the unit on November 28, 2023 and “put two large duffle bags and a large case that looked like a gun case inside the unit.” Id. at ¶ 24. Detective Wolfe arranged for Deputy Guthrie and his canine partner to conduct a free air sniff around the storage unit. Detective Wolfe indicated, “K9 Feyd gave a change of behavior to indicate the presence of narcotics at the door to Unit A-020.” Id. at ¶ 25. Canine alert outside of a closed door of a commercial storage unit, with the canine legally positioned in the area accessible to the unit facility’s employees and anyone renting one of the units in the facility, is not a “search,” for Fourth Amendment purposes.
In the case at bar, Mr. Shannon did not challenge “Feyd’s” free air sniff as an illegal search in either his written motion to suppress or during the suppression hearing.
See Motion to Suppress and Request for Oral Hearing, filed Feb. 9, 2024 Mr. Shannon’s motion to suppress raised no specific issues and was only a general motion containing boilerplate language. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, neither party raised the issue of the canine’s alert outside of the closed door of the commercial storage unit as a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes in its questioning of Detective Wolfe, or in opening or closing arguments.
In the case at bar, Mr. Shannon did not challenge “Feyd’s” qualifications or training to accurately detect the odor of narcotics, in either his written motion to suppress or during the suppression hearing.
Defendant’s Cannot Raise a Legal Issue for the First Time on Appeal
In the case at bar, Mr. Shannon failed to challenge in his motion to suppress whether the canine’s search violated the Fourth Amendment, and whether the canine was certified to accurately detect the odor of narcotics. He has therefore waived any argument that Detective Wolfe’s affidavit did not support a finding of probable cause because it failed to disclose the qualifications or training of the canine that performed the sniff and, further, that the canine’s sniff itself violated any Fourth Amendment concerns.
Conclusion
Given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, and considering the affidavit in its entirety, Detective Wolfe’s independent corroboration of the information obtained from his sources, and the canine’s positive alert, our review of the record confirms that the judge had a substantial basis for concluding that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in Mr. Shannon’s storage locker. Therefore, probable cause supported the issuance of the search warrant.
Mr. Shannon’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
Information for this case was obtained from State v. Shannon, 2025 – Ohio – 1224.
State v. Shannon, 2025 – Ohio – 1224 was issued by the Fifth District Appellate Court on April 7, 2025 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas.
Lessons Learned:
- Can a Canine’s Alert on a Storage Unit Establish Probable Cause? On March 26, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court held “The government use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) Consequently a canine, without a search warrant, cannot be used to sniff the doorway of a home to establish probable cause. In this case Canine Feyd was used to sniff the exterior of a storage unit. The legal analysis must begin with the lawfulness of the handler standing outside of the storage unit. Here, “Detective Wolfe was given the pass code and permission to enter the facility by an employee.”, consequently, law enforcement had consent by the person in control of the land to enter. Though this specific legal issue was not raised at trial and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, the court would have likely found the canine alert to be lawful.
- Fruitless Traffic Stops – Law enforcement has a legal obligation to give the prosecutor all exculpatory evidence. What is exculpatory evidence? A statement or other evidence which tends to justify, excuse or clear the defendant from alleged fault or guilt. Blacks Law Dictionary, 566 (6th, 1990) On May 13, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court issued Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the court held that both law enforcement and the prosecution have an obligation to provide exculpatory information to the defense; We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. In practical application, law enforcement should provide all evidence to the prosecutor and permit the prosecutor the responsibility to notify the defense of what may be exculpatory. In this case the fruitless searches during the traffic stops provided Mr. Shannon with exculpatory evidence. The fruitless traffic stop information was shared with the prosecutor and defense in strict compliance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Keep in mind that just because one part of a case is favorable for the defendant, it does not mean that the same defendant cannot be found guilty based on other inculpatory evidence.
- Difference Between an Confidential Informant and a Confidential Reliable Informant – In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969), the United States Supreme Court set forth a two-pronged test to determine whether an informant’s tip establishes probable cause to issue a warrant. Under that test, a magistrate must be informed of: (1) The basis of the informant’s knowledge; and (2) Sufficient facts to establish either the informant’s veracity or the reliability of the informant’s information. The challenge is that ‘informants’ are deeply involved in the very crimes they are informing about. Informants are often trading information for leniency … consequently they are not always ‘reliable’ and/or the people suspects are not always reliable.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Knox County Sheriff’s Detective Terry Wolfe, Canine Deputy Luke Guthrie and the Knox County Prosecutor’s Office should be highly commended for their investigation and prosecution of Mr. Shannon. Well done!
Does your agency train on the Search Warrants and Canine Searches?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!