OH5: Defendant didn’t rebut the presumption of regularity of the warrant

Defendant didn’t rebut the presumption of regularity of the warrant. “There is a presumption of regularity when an arrest or a search is authorized by a warrant. A judicial officer has conducted a prior review of the facts and circumstances supporting the request for the warrant and has decided that probable cause exists to justify the intrusion. Generally, any defect in the warrant process or the execution will be readily provable from the affidavits, warrant, and return of the execution on file with the court and is accessible to the defendant. Consequently, the burden of establishing any factual matter proving a defect or error in form falls on the defendant who seeks to exclude the evidence. The defendant must raise any defects in the warrant at the trial court and may not raise those issues for the first time on appeal. Whether probable cause existed to issue the warrant will be ascertainable within the four corners of the supporting affidavits and record of oral testimony taken in support of the request for a warrant. The reviewing court determines whether there was sufficient information presented to the magistrate to justify a finding of probable cause and issuance of a warrant. The reviewing court may not augment the written affidavit with testimony unless such testimony was taken by the magistrate prior to the issuance of the warrant, transcribed and made part of the affidavit.” State v. McDaniel, 2015-Ohio-1007, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1037 (5th Dist. March 16, 2015).*

There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s probation officer’s search of his home. Therefore, defense counsel was not ineffective for not raising it. State v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-1094, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1033 (12th Dist. March 23, 2015).*