OH1: Failure to show nexus is a lack of PC; “minimally sufficient nexus” for GFE is different

The affidavit in support of the warrant here failed to show nexus to defendant’s place in the drug offense. And, nexus for probable cause and “minimally sufficient nexus” for the good faith exception are different things. State v. Johnson, 2024-Ohio-1147, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 1076 (1st Dist. Mar. 27, 2024) n.1:

The probable cause “nexus” requirement is not to be confused with the “‘minimally sufficient nexus'” requirement that Ohio courts and the Sixth Circuit have applied in determining whether to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. State v. Schubert, 171 Ohio St.3d 617, 2022-Ohio-4604, 219 N.E.3d 916, ¶ 9-13, quoting Carpenter at 596. The “minimally sufficient nexus” requirement for the good faith exception is a distinct and lower standard than the probable cause “nexus” requirement, and a “minimally sufficient nexus” is insufficient for concluding a magistrate had a “substantial basis” for probable cause. See [United States v.] Carpenter, [360 F.3d 591,] 594-96 [(6th Cir.2004) (en banc)]. At this point in the analysis, we only consider whether a “nexus” existed to support the magistrate’s probable cause determination. As explained below, the state did not advance a good faith exception argument for us to consider.

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.