OH12: RS for stop after drugs found in 70 other traffic stops leaving suspected drug house

Suppose just for the sake of argument a law enforcement officer conducts 70 potentially legal stops of cars leaving a drug house but then finds drugs in the car. Assume further there was no reasonable suspicion for a detention or probable cause for a search. Suppose further the officer finds drugs nearly 100% of the time. Few of them are arrested to keep the investigation on the down low. Then the officer gets a search warrant for the house they were all leaving based on all the drugs coming out of there. Does the target of the search in the house have standing for a motion to suppress on how the probable cause was developed? Almost certainly not, and see § 4.17 on target standing. But would a potential Rochin due process “shocking to the conscience” claim be viable? Probably not, because the target wasn’t the victim of the conscious shocking police work. This might be suggested by State v. Hinkston, 2020-Ohio-6903, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 4720 (12th Dist. Dec. 28, 2020), although these aren’t the facts. There,

Officer Herren testified that prior to the traffic stop in this case, there had been “70 some” different traffic stops where drugs were retrieved from automobiles after leaving the house he was surveilling. He also testified that the house was confirmed as a drug house when controlled buys were conducted by the drug unit. A search warrant was conducted and ultimately the owner was federally indicted on drug charges.

Note the controlled buys alone are clearly enough for probable cause for the house.

The defendant in this case was the driver of one of the cars, and there was easily reasonable suspicion to detain him from facts developing just as the stop occurred.

But, should there be an “ends doesn’t justifies the means” basis for the exclusionary rule? 70 potential Fourth Amendment violations to get a search warrant for yet another person? Is it government’s place to violate the rights of many to prosecute one? See § 4.04. There is no ready answer.

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.