OH4: CI’s double hearsay with corroboration of innocent details enough

Double hearsay from a CI was sufficient where the officers corroborated only innocent details. State v. Ralston, 2011 Ohio 3552, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 3000 (4th Dist. July 7, 2011)*:

[*P17] As Appellant correctly notes, there are no facts in the affidavit upon which the magistrate could have found a substantial basis for believing that there was a factual basis for the information the third party furnished to the informant. Nothing in the affidavit reveals how the third party came to know that Appellant was trafficking in or cultivating marijuana. The affidavit did not contain an “explicit and detailed description of the alleged wrongdoing” so the magistrate could distinguish the third party’s claim from idle rumor. It was not stated that the third party had personally obtained from the stash house the marijuana he displayed to the informant. It was not stated that the third party had ever been inside of the stash house and observed any wrongdoing, giving him firsthand knowledge.

. . .

[*P19] Though law enforcement only corroborated innocent facts, this does not negate their cumulative effect and contribution to the determination of probable cause, especially in light of the third party’s allegations. Specifically, knowledge of a prior arrest and conviction relating to drug trafficking is a “‘practical consideration of everyday life’ upon which an officer or magistrate may properly rely in assessing the reliability of an informant’s tip.” State v. Underwood, 4th Dist. No. 03CA2930, 2005 Ohio 2309, at ¶43.

I’m stunned. This is bizarre. Nothing protects against an idle street rumor or revenge becoming probable cause.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.