In an investigation of defendant’s shooting, officers obtained a search warrant for his premises and the warrant included search for drugs. The warrant was overbroad, but the court declines to apply the exclusionary rule finding it was in good faith. State v. Ojezua, 2020-Ohio-303, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 261 (2d Dist. Jan. 31, 2020):
[*P48] In this case, the search warrant affidavit focused, in large part, on the circumstances of the shooting, and the magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude that evidence related to the shooting would be found in and outside the residence. Thus, the issuance of a search warrant for the residence and the curtilage, based on the shooting, was supported by probable cause. Detective Dingee testified that, upon receiving the warrant, he began his search in the master bedroom where Ojezua was shot.
[*P49] Although the affidavit contained minimal support for a conclusion that drugs also would likely be found in the residence, we cannot conclude that the officers’ reliance on the search warrant at issue merits application of the exclusionary rule. As stated in Herring, “[t]o trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence.” Herring at 144. We cannot conclude that the error in this case rises to that level.