OH5: Six weeks after second controlled buy not stale where there’s ongoing drug dealing

There were two controlled buys of marijuana from defendant’s store on May 3d & 21st. A third buy was July 2d but the test results weren’t back when a search warrant was obtained on July 3d. The July 2d buy was not a controlled substance. Nonetheless, defendant was in the business of selling marijuana from his store and the six weeks from the second controlled buy to the search warrant wasn’t stale for Fourth Amendment purposes. Defendant also was known to sell analogs and food stamps from the business. It was an ongoing operation. State v. Hmedian, 2014-Ohio-5728, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5545 (5th Dist. December 22, 2014).

On “the totality of the circumstances, Officer Kolek had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle driven by Mr. Shankel based both on his knowledge that the registered owner had an expired license and his observation of the driver.” State v. Shankel, 2014-Ohio-5712, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5517 (9th Dist. December 29, 2014).*

Defendant’s 2255 claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging a ping order that was based on a court order with a showing of probable cause is denied since no case says that it was unlawful in the first place. Pinging the cell phone while he was home was not a search of the home–it only confirmed he was home. United States v. Ayers, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177872 (S.D. Ohio December 29, 2014).*