Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reviewed the denial of Ricky Dockum's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a marijuana investigation and subsequent search-warrant execution. The court held that the warrant affidavit lacked probable cause connecting the odor of marijuana to the particular residence and that the good-faith exception did not apply because officers relied on information obtained through an unlawful warrantless entry. The judgment was reversed and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Franks hearing based on alleged false statements and omissions in the search-warrant affidavit.
- Whether the odor of raw marijuana, without additional facts connecting the odor to a particular place on a property, established probable cause to search a home.
- Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule saved evidence obtained under a warrant that lacked probable cause and was based in part on an unlawful warrantless entry.
Holdings
- Dockum failed to identify evidence making the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing; therefore, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request one.
- The odor of raw marijuana is not categorically insufficient to support a search warrant; in some circumstances it may establish probable cause. In this case, however, the affidavit lacked sufficient probable cause because it did not establish a reliable nexus between the odor and the particular structure to be searched.
- The good-faith exception did not apply because the officers' reliance on the warrant was not objectively reasonable where the warrant was obtained using information from an unlawful entry and lacked a sufficient nexus between the marijuana odor and the home.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we find there may be some instances in which the odor of raw marijuana could support a search warrant” (¶ 24)
“Before issuing a search warrant, the issuing judge must have facts that demonstrate “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”” (¶ 25)
“The warrant, therefore, issued without sufficient probable cause, and the trial court erred in finding otherwise.” (¶ 27)
“Accordingly, we find appellant’s second assignment of error well-taken, as the warrant was issued without probable clause, and reverse the judgment denying appellant’s motion to suppress.” (¶ 37)
Factual background
Police officers smelled raw marijuana near properties at 153 and 155 Superior Street in Rossford, Ohio. After investigating, they entered the property without a warrant, pushed open a rear door of a structure identified as 155 1/2 Superior, and observed household items and alleged grow-operation indicators. Officers used information from that entry, along with the odor and observations of a resident's conduct, to obtain a warrant and seize marijuana plants, loose marijuana, grow equipment, chemicals, and related items.
Procedural history
Dockum was charged in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas with illegal cultivation of marijuana, illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for drug manufacture, possession of marijuana, and possession of hashish. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the warrantless entry onto the curtilage and into the structure unconstitutional but held that the remaining information established probable cause and declined to suppress the evidence. Dockum then entered a no-contest plea and was sentenced to two years of community control on each count. The Sixth District reversed, holding that the affidavit lacked probable cause and that the good-faith exception did not apply.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded for proceedings consistent with the decision after reversal of the judgment denying the motion to suppress.