OH10: Fact premises had two addresses was unknown to officers; no suppression

The trial court redacted a false statement [likely a cut and paste error] from the affidavit for the search warrant and it didn’t undermine the probable cause at all. It doesn’t matter whether it was intentional or negligent because probable cause still remains. There also were two addresses involved at the premises, but the police had no way of knowing it at the time they got the search warrant. The search was valid. State v. Saxton, 2019-Ohio-5257, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5317 (10th Dist. Dec. 19, 2019):

[*P24] The search warrant affidavit here contained information that four separate confidential informants provided reliable information that Saxton was trafficking drugs out of the body shop at 2100 Courtright Road. Whitehall police additionally conducted surveillance for two controlled buys involving Saxton at the body shop. The affidavit further stated officers observed Saxton return immediately to 6144 Stornoway Drive after conducting one of the controlled buys. As this court has previously noted in two other cases involving Detective Grinstead, “‘[t]he temporal proximity between appellant’s arrivals to the residence and the controlled drug transactions, combined with Detective Grinstead’s experience in narcotics investigations, provided the magistrate with a substantial basis to conclude that a nexus existed between the place to be searched and the alleged criminal activity, and, at the least, probable cause to believe the proceeds of a drug transaction would be located in the residence.'” State v. Young, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-845, 2019-Ohio-4639, ¶ 19, quoting Phillips at ¶ 26.

[*P25] Additionally, the redacted search warrant affidavit contained ample probable cause to establish 6144 Stornoway Drive was Saxton’s residence, despite Saxton’s arguments to the contrary. Officers observed Saxton return directly to 6144 Stornoway Drive after conducting the controlled buy, park his vehicle in the address’s designated parking spot, and enter through the rear door of the apartment. Moreover, to the extent Saxton argues the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search 6144 Stornoway Drive because no one provided police with any information about what might be inside the residence, we have noted that an informant need not indicate having been personally inside a drug dealer’s residence and observing narcotics there in order to establish probable cause to search. Young at ¶ 21, citing Phillips at ¶ 24-26, citing United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375 (6th Cir.2016). In addition to the information in the search warrant affidavit that HIDTA agents believed 6144 Stornoway Drive to be Saxton’s residence, the Whitehall officers’ observations created probable cause both that Saxton resided at the address and that his residence would contain the proceeds of the drug transactions and/or further drug trafficking materials.

[*P26] For these reasons, even under a heightened de novo standard of review, we conclude the non-excised portions of the search warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the residence to be searched. See Young at ¶ 22, citing Phillips at ¶ 25. Accordingly, we conclude probable cause existed for the issuance of a search warrant of Saxton’s residence at 6144 Stornoway Drive, and the trial court did not err in denying Saxton’s motion to suppress on that basis.