OH: No right of confrontation to bar CI’s hearsay at suppression hearing

Right of confrontation does not apply in pretrial proceedings like a suppression hearing. State v. Miller, 2008 Ohio 100, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 77 (5th Dist. January 11, 2008):

Appellant contends the out-of-court statements of the confidential informant offered by the police officer at the suppression hearing are “testimonial” under Crawford; however, “[t]he right to confrontation, which includes the right to physically face and cross-examine witnesses, is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial proceedings.” State v. Dunn, Washington App.No. 03CA47. 2004 Ohio 2883, P 11, citing Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987), 480 U.S. 39, 52-53, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40. Although this appears to be a question of first impression in this Court, the Sixth District Court of Appeals has concluded that the rule of Crawford applies to the actual criminal trial, not to a suppression hearing. See State v. Massie, Ottawa App.No. OT-04-007, 2005 Ohio 1678, P 16. Upon our review of Crawford and its progeny, we decline to extend the rule to pretrial suppression hearings under the circumstances of the case sub judice.

Defendant had an expectation of privacy in a locked footlocker located in a basement storage area that others had access to. It was a proper target of a search under a warrant, however, because it could have contained the object of the search: drugs. Commonwealth v. Pierre, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 58, 879 N.E.2d 131 (2008).*

Search of defendant’s jacket was not justified by consent, exigent circumstances, or any other exception that produced drugs used against him. However, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Tallant, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 21 (January 14, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.