OH2: A general motion to suppress did not put state on notice to issue it wasn’t prepared to litigate; waiver found

Defendant’s motion to suppress did not put the state on notice that his primary issue was the qualifications of the drug dog and handler, so the issue was not preserved for appeal. State v. Matthews, 2015-Ohio-1750, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1700 (2d Dist. May 8, 2015) (Treatise § 60.30 n.6).

The court concludes, with difficulty, that there was no probable cause for issuance of a search warrant for defendant’s storage building based on what it had. The law, however, was less than crystal clear on this. Accordingly, the good faith exception would be applied because the officers acted in good faith, the magistrate did not abandon her neutral and detached role, and the case law that there was no probable cause wasn’t obvious. State v. Perez, 2015-Ohio-1753, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1699 (2d Dist. May 8, 2015). Note: At least the court did decide the probable cause question for the future. This search is saved by the good faith exception, but the next one won’t be.