OH3: It’s not constitutionally required that the triggering condition of an anticipatory SW be stated

The triggering condition for the anticipatory search warrant was provided for in the warrant, but that’s not constitutionally required. It did not matter that defendant was a guest in the premises. There was a fair probability that the triggering conditions would exist and they were not speculative. Also, the good faith exception applies. State v. Maniaci, 2017-Ohio-8270, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4655 (3d Dist. Oct. 23, 2017):

[*P25] Initially, we note that “The Fourth Amendment ‘does not require that the triggering condition for an anticipatory search warrant be set forth in the warrant itself.’” United States v. Perkins, — F.Supp.3d —, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109865, 2017 WL 2954633, quoting Grubbs at 99. The triggering event, however, must be explicit, clear, and narrowly drawn. United States v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2002). The purpose of defining a triggering event in an anticipatory warrant is to ensure that officers serve an almost ministerial role in deciding when to execute the warrant. United States v. Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1993) (internal quotations omitted). However, “[w]arrants and their supporting documents are [to] be read not hypertechnically, but in a commonsense fashion.” Perkins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109865, 2017 WL 2954633, citing Miggins, 302 F.3d at 395 (internal quotations omitted). If a triggering event does not occur, the warrant is rendered void. United States v. Rey, 923 F.2d 1217, 1221 (6th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Rowland, 145 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 1998).

. . .

[*P31] In sum, we conclude the record demonstrates that the judge issuing the anticipatory search warrant could have reasonably concluded that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the residence at issue if the triggering conditions occurred, and that there was probable cause to believe that the triggering conditions were going to occur. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in overruling Maniaci’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained after the execution of the search warrant of the 860 Kibbey Drive Apartment C residence. Accordingly, the assignments are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

This entry was posted in Anticipatory warrant. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.