OH2: Strieff attenuation doctrine not applied to an unlawful warrantless entry into a house and then finding a warrant on the defendant

Strieff attenuation doctrine not applied to an unlawful warrantless entry into a house and then finding a warrant on the defendant. State v. Turpin, 2017-Ohio-7435, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3744, Sept. 1, 2017):

[*P17] Although we concur with the trial court regarding the unlawfulness of the officer’s initial entry into the residence, we find that the court erred when it determined that the evidence against Turpin should be admitted pursuant to the attenuation doctrine. First, the officer discovered the evidence against Turpin almost immediately after his unconstitutional entry into the Haverfield Road residence. The rapidity with which the officer discovered the evidence following his entry into the residence supports suppression. Utah v. Strieff, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2056, 2063, 195 L.Ed.2d 400 (2016). Second, the entirety of the officer’s unconstitutional conduct was completed before he discovered the arrest warrant for Turpin; consequently, the discovery of the warrant cannot be said to have been an “intervening circumstance” with respect to the unconstitutional conduct. See State v. Hines, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24346, 2012-Ohio-207, ¶ 3-7 and 15.