OH6: Small amount of MJ in trash pull wasn’t PC for SW for evidence of cultivation or trafficking

Officers had three year old information that defendant was involved in marijuana cultivation, and nothing was done about it. A trash pull was done that produced a tiny amount of marijuana. The stale information had to be disregarded, and the small amount of marijuana was not enough to justify a search warrant for cultivation or trafficking. Moreover, the state bears the burden of proof on the good faith exception, and it does not apply. State v. Goble, 2014-Ohio-3967, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 3880 (6th Dist. September 12, 2014):

[*P13] This leaves the evidence obtained from the trash pull as the sole basis for obtaining the search warrant. In State v. Weimer, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92094, 2009-Ohio-4983, officers obtained a search warrant of the defendant’s home based on (1) a complaint that a known drug trafficker resided on the property, (2) officers driving by the house twice seeing an accused drug dealer at defendant’s residence, and (3) a trash pull during which Ziplock bags and a spoon with cocaine residue were found. Upon an appeal by the state, the appellate court held that the trial court properly suppressed evidence obtained pursuant to the search. The affidavit for search warrant was silent as to the date of the anonymous complaint and omitted the specific dates that surveillance was conducted. Id. at ¶ 22. This left only the evidence obtained from the trash pull, which the court concluded was insufficient. Id. at ¶ 25. It distinguished the case from other cases upholding search warrants obtained with evidence from a single trash pull because in those other cases, “the facts underlying probable cause were much stronger” and involved additional facts such as “extensive and continuous surveillance by police, heavy foot traffic to and from the target residence ***, controlled buys by police informants, and even observation of these transactions by police.” Id.

. . .

[*P16] Like the cases cited, we conclude that the information contained in the affidavit for search warrant was insufficient to provide probable cause for the extensive search of Goble’s home for evidence of cultivation of marijuana and drug trafficking. Having reached this conclusion, we need not address Goble’s first assignment of error. We must, however, consider whether the officers’ reliance on the search warrant was “objectively reasonable” so as to prevent the exclusion of the evidence obtained from Goble’s home.