OH: Lack of judge’s signature on actual arrest warrant not fatal where judge signed off on complaint; GFE also applies

The absence of the judge’s signature on an arrest warrant was not fatal where the affidavit for probable cause sworn by the witness was attested to by the judge and attached. The good faith exception also applies. (Finally, the state’s alternative argument for a warrantless arrest was waived by failing to present it to the trial court.) State v. Harrison, 2021-Ohio-4465, 2021 Ohio LEXIS 2530 (Dec. 22, 2021):

[P30] We note initially that as addressed in Williams, Ohio law vests only judges with the authority to issue search warrants. See Crim.R. 41(A) (search warrant or tracking-device warrant may be issued by a judge of a court of record); Crim.R. 41(C)(2) (judge shall issue search warrant if satisfied that probable cause exists); R.C. 2933.21 (judge of a court of record may, within his jurisdiction, issue search warrants); R.C. 2933.24(A) (search warrant shall require executing officer to search the place or person named or described for the property and bring the person before judge or magistrate). See also State v. Commins, 12th Dist. Nos. CA2009-06-004 and CA2009-06-005, 2009-Ohio-6415, ¶ 19-23 (search warrant issued by magistrate was void). By contrast, Ohio law allows arrest warrants to be issued by a judge, magistrate, clerk of court, or officer of the court designated by the judge. See Crim.R. 4(A)(1).

[*P31] We further note that no procedural rule or statute expressly requires the judge’s signature on a search warrant. See Williams at 28 (Holmes, J., dissenting) (“There is no ‘signature requirement’ for search warrants provided by statute in Ohio, by Constitution or by rule, and such signature must be considered as only ministerial in nature”). Nevertheless, this court has held that “[t]he signing of a search warrant is the only identifiable objective manifestation of a judge’s subjective intent to issue a search warrant. * * * Without having the signature of the authorizing magistrate affixed to the warrant, a citizen is left to guess whether such a warrant has validity.” Id. at 25. Indeed, “the signature requirement provides both protection and assurance to property owners faced with the threat of a search of their property, in that they may review the document and determine whether or not they are required to allow officers to conduct the search.” Id. at 26.

[*P32] Like a search warrant in which the breadth of the search and seizure is limited by the terms expressly approved by the authorizing judge, an arrest warrant limits the scope of the seizure by naming (or adequately describing) the person charged with committing an identified criminal offense in either the warrant or an attached complaint. But unlike a search warrant in which prompt judicial review and relief may not be immediately available, an arrest and detention set the judicial machinery in motion, allowing for disputes as to the lawfulness of the arrest to be addressed promptly through preliminary judicial proceedings.

[*P33] We readily agree that a signature on search warrants and arrest warrants is “the best device for safeguarding an individual’s rights.” See Williams, 57 Ohio St.3d at 26, 565 N.E.2d 563. But our decision in Hoffman recognizes that the primary if not fundamental safeguard of an arrest warrant is that probable cause must be found before the warrant may be issued. See Hoffman, 141 Ohio St.3d 428, 2014-Ohio-4795, 25 N.E.3d 993, at ¶ 14.

[*P34] In the instant case, there is no doubt that probable cause to arrest Harrison was found before the arrest warrant was issued. The record here contains an affirmative indication that Judge Beck found probable cause to issue an arrest warrant on February 27, using a blank arrest warrant that expressly incorporated an attached sworn complaint. Though far from ideal, the judge’s affirmative documentation on the complaint that probable cause was found sufficed to confirm that the court issued the arrest warrant based on that finding.

[*P35] We therefore conclude that the arrest warrant at issue here adequately complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 4 notwithstanding the absence of a court official’s signature on the warrant. But finding that the arrest warrant did not violate Crim.R. 4 does not end our inquiry, for the trial court determined that the absence of a signature on the warrant made this an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We turn now to consider that issue.