[T]he warrant contained a technical violation which did not rise to the level of constitutional error.
State v. Sadler
Licking County, Ohio
October 9, 2025
Why is this case important?
State v. Sadler is important because it reaffirms that clerical, typographical [scrivener] errors in a search warrant—such as an incorrect date—do not invalidate the warrant or require suppression when officers otherwise act lawfully, promptly, and in good faith. The Fifth District made clear that the exclusionary rule is reserved for deliberate, reckless, or systemic violations of the Fourth Amendment, not unintentional scrivener’s errors.
Anticipatory Affidavit and Warrant
In June of 2024, Detective Jarrod Conley of the Newark Police Department was working with the Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Agency (CODE) and assigned to a drug investigation involving Mr. Alvin Sadler. In August 2024, an anticipatory affidavit and warrant to search Mr. Sadler’s residence was drafted, however, additional information further prolonged the investigation. The final line of the anticipatory affidavit read “Sworn to and subscribed in my presence this ____ day of August 2024. Time ___.” The warrant also contained a partially pre-filled date line which read “Dated this ____ day of August 2024. Time _____.”
Warrant is Prepared and Signed with the Incorrect Month
On October 21, 2024, Det. Conley learned Mr. Sadler took possession of a large amount of methamphetamine and was storing it inside his residence on Valley View Drive Southeast. On the same day Det. Conley went to Licking County Common Pleas Court Judge Branstool requesting a warrant to search Mr. Sadler’s residence and using the previously drafted affidavit and warrant. The affidavit described information received by CODE detectives on October 15 and 21, 2024. Det. Conley forgot, however, to change the month on the pre-drafted documents from August to October and no one caught the error. The signed affidavit therefore read “Sworn to and subscribed in my presence this 21st day of August 2024. Time 9:21 am.” The warrant contained the same date and time. The warrant return and inventory, however, listed the correct month of October. State’s exhibits 1 and 2. The search of Mr. Sadler’s residence yielded more than five times the bulk amount of methamphetamine.
Mr. Sadler Indicted for Aggravated Trafficking and WUD
As a result of the search, on October 31, 2024, the Licking County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Mr. Sadler with one count each of aggravated possession of drugs and aggravated trafficking in drugs, felonies of the second degree, and one count of having weapons under disability, a felony of the third degree.
Mr. Sadler was indicted, tried and convicted here at the Licking County Courthouse.
Motion to Suppress is Filed
On November 24, 2024, Mr. Sadler filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained in the search. Seizing on the typographical error, Mr. Sadler argued the two-month delay in serving the warrant was a violation of Crim.R. 41(C)(2), constituted grossly negligent conduct, rendered the warrant invalid, and therefore precluded any application of the good faith exception. In its memorandum contra, the State argued the word August in the affidavit and search warrant was a scrivener’s error, did not amount to a constitutional violation, and that the officers reasonably relied on the warrant.
Motion to Suppress is Denied
Pled to Aggravated Trafficking
Sentenced to Four Years
A suppression hearing was held on January 13, 2025. The State elicited the above outlined testimony from Detective Det. Conley and additionally submitted body camera footage of the officers executing the search warrant on October 21, 2024. State’s exhibit 3. Mr. Sadler presented no evidence. By judgment entry issued March 21, 2025, the trial court overruled Mr. Sadler’s motion finding no deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police conduct, and thus no constitutional violation sufficient to warrant suppression. Mr. Sadler subsequently withdrew his pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of no contest. The trial court accepted Mr. Sadler’s pleas, found him guilty, and imposed an aggregate prison term of four years.
Appeal
Mr. Sadler filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for consideration. He raises one assignment of error as follows:
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Sadler argues the trial court erred in
overruling his motion to suppress. We disagree.
Mr. Sadler’s Arguments
Systemic Negligence
Mr. Sadler appears to challenge the trial court’s finding of fact. He argues the trial court erred in accepting the State’s claim that the August date on the affidavit and search warrant “was a mere scrivener’s error” when the warrant was not executed until October. Brief of Appellant at 4. He argues this defect in the search warrant and affidavit violated the mandate of Crim.R. 41(C)(2) that a warrant be executed within three days. According to Mr. Sadler, this defect constitutes systemic negligence precluding the good faith exception.
Established Case Law – Exclusionary Rule
First, it is well-established that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to technical violations of Crim.R. 41 which do not rise to the level of constitutional error. Cleveland v. Becvar, 63 Ohio App.3d 163, 166 (8th Dist.1989).
Was the Warrant Stale?
Next, Mr. Sadler challenges the information contained in the affidavit as “stale” based on the August date contained in the signature lines. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing, however, supports the trial court’s conclusion that the date error was a technical defect which did not call for application of the exclusionary rule. First, the affidavit described information obtained by CODE officers on October 15 and 21, 2024, not August. State’s Exhibit 1, Affidavit for Search, ¶¶ 3-4. Second, the warrant was executed the same day it was requested—October 21, 2024—as evidenced by body camera footage submitted by the State during the suppression hearing and Detective Det. Conley’s testimony. State’s Exhibit 3, transcript of suppression hearing at 21. Mr. Sadler’s staleness arguments are therefore unsupported by the record.
Established Case Law – Clerical Error
In State v. Newman, 2017-Ohio-4047 (5th Dist.), we noted “it is well- established that inadvertent clerical errors, unless they cause prejudice to the defendant, will not invalidate an otherwise valid search warrant.” Id. at ¶ 22. Application of the exclusionary rule is meant to deter law enforcement conduct that “flagrantly, deliberately, or recklessly violates the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Hoffman, 2014-Ohio-4795, ¶ 46.
Conclusion and Holding
The record before us contains no evidence of any such conduct. Rather, the warrant contained a technical violation which did not rise to the level of constitutional error. Accordingly, Mr. Sadler’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Sadler, 2025 – Ohio – 4665.
State v. Sadler, 2025 – Ohio – 4665 was issued by the Fifth District Court on October 9, 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
- Warrant Clerical Errors – On May 30, 2017 the Fifth District Appellate Court issued State v. Newman, 2017 – Ohio – 4047 and that court held “[I]t is well-established that inadvertent clerical errors, unless they cause prejudice to the defendant, will not invalidate an otherwise valid search warrant.”. Courts distinguish between technical defects and Fourth Amendment violations. If the underlying probable cause is valid and the error does not mislead the issuing judge or prejudice the defendant, suppression of the evidence is unlikely.
- Stale Probable Cause – On December 5, 1932 the U.S. Supreme Court issued Sgro v. U.S., 287 U.S. 206 and the court held “A warrant must be supported by ‘facts so closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at the time.’. In this case Mr. Sadler argued that Det. Conley’s probable cause was stale because the warrant listed August 21, 2024 when it was actually October 21, 2024. Though this is a legal argument it was not a practical argument because the August 21st date was a scrivener error not an actual error. Courts will evaluate the totality of the circumstances, not at signature-line scrivener errors.
- Next Steps – A date error that was missed was harmless because the substantive probable cause was fresh, the warrant was executed immediately, and there was no intent by law enforcement to mislead. Consequently, the evidence survived. To improve, have a teammate review each affidavit prior to seeking a judge to sign the warrant.
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!