OH12: GFE applies to precedent decided day before search where nobody knew of the case

The day before defendant’s parole search, the state supreme court put the legality of his parole status in doubt. Nobody involved even knew about the case. The court agrees that the good faith exception applies to the search because there was no deterrent value. State v. Sanders, 2021-Ohio-275, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 269 (12th Dist. Feb. 1, 2021):

[*P22] As stated previously, the trial court found the “possibly unwarranted search” of Sanders’ residence by P.O. Urban was conducted “with absolutely no culpability on the part of law enforcement.” We agree.

[*P23] The Ohio Supreme Court released its decision in Hitchcock on August 15, 2019. The search of Sanders’ residence took place the very next day, August 16, 2019. The parties’ joint stipulation of fact specifically notes that neither Agent Wilson nor P.O. Urban are licensed attorneys who were in the practice of monitoring the Ohio Supreme Court website for case law updates. The same is true as it relates to the other agents and probation officers in the Clermont County Narcotics Unit and the Hamilton County Probation Department. The parties’ joint stipulation of fact also notes that neither Agent Wilson nor P.O. Urban were aware of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Hitchcock at any time prior to Sanders’ residence being searched. The parties’ joint stipulation of fact further notes that no Hamilton County judicial official or court staff ever contacted P.O. Urban about the status of Sanders’ community control in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Hitchcock.

[*P24] Considering that even the most seasoned attorneys often lack the skillset necessary to understand the potential ramifications that a decision issued by the Ohio Supreme Court may have within 24 hours of its release, the same would certainly be true for law enforcement officers like Agent Sanders and P.O. Urban who are not licensed attorneys who engage in the practice of law. Therefore, just as the trial court found, because there was no reason for anyone involved in the search of Sanders’ residence to believe Sanders’ three-year community control term had been rendered “void” at the time P.O. Urban conducted the search of Sanders’ residence, “suppressing the resulting evidence would have zero deterrent effect on future Fourth Amendment violations.” Accordingly, since the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, something which did not occur here, we find no error in the trial court’s decision denying Sanders’ motion to suppress upon finding the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule clearly applies to the case at bar.