OH1: Protective sweep unjustified; inevitable discovery alternative waived by state by lack of preservation

The protective sweep here was unreasonable because the only gun the officers knew anything about had already been found and there were no people to look for. The trial court erred in overruling the motion to suppress. The state waived inevitable discovery by not presenting it below. State v. Curry, 2025-Ohio-2083 (1st Dist. June 13, 2025).

Nexus is shown: “In this case, the Affidavit of Probable Cause contains direct evidence that establishes a nexus between Defendant, his alleged criminal activity, and the 303 Gardner Street residence. The Affidavit of Probable Cause outlined Defendant’s participation in an ongoing and protracted drug trafficking conspiracy principally involving his brother Akilees, including a controlled purchase of fentanyl at Defendant’s 303 Gardner Street residence from a historically reliable CI.” United States v. Hobson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112501 (M.D. Pa. June 13, 2025).*

This child pornography warrant wasn’t stale, and it showed probable cause for computers, a vehicle, and his person. And the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Allen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112884 (N.D. Ga. May 22, 2025).* [Note: the opinion says it was called “amazingly stale” in the pleadings. I have yet to read an opinion that a child porn warrant was ever stale. It’s more likely than anything to be kept. I had a client with a 40+ year old collection in every form: pre-computer magazines, films, and on every size and form of computer media.]

This entry was posted in Nexus, Protective sweep, Staleness, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.