OH2: The fact a SW had a laundry list of 182 things to search for and seize isn’t fatal where def doesn’t show what was overseized

The search warrant here was for illegal fireworks and listed 182 items to be seized, including fireworks. “Johnson also contends the warrant is invalid because it authorized the seizure of a boilerplate list of 182 items, all or most of which he claims lack a relationship to possessing fireworks.” First, this wasn’t presented in the motion to suppress. Second, it fails on the merits because he doesn’t show that things weren’t seized that aren’t pertinent to the offense under investigation. State v. Johnson, 2020-Ohio-4159, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3055 (2d Dist. Aug. 21, 2020):

[*P27] Second, the record before us does not reveal what items were seized from Johnson’s parents’ property. Nor does the record establish that the trial court knew the identity of the items seized when it issued its suppression ruling. The record on appeal does not include an inventory sheet or anything else identifying what was found when the search warrant was executed. That being so, Johnson cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the improper seizure of any non-contraband items or items for which probable cause did not exist. In the absence of evidence before the trial court at the time of its suppression ruling regarding the items seized, we find no plain error in the trial court’s suppression ruling. Cf. Terrell at ¶ 69 (“Regarding the non-contraband items listed above seized in the course of the search, there was no evidence before the trial court regarding any items seized. As noted above, in addressing the trial court’s decision on the motion to suppress, we will not consider the testimony adduced at trial. Plain error is not demonstrated.”).

[*P28] The final issue under Johnson’s first assignment of error is whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. Given that we have rejected each of Johnson’s challenges to the search warrant for his parents’ property, we need not address the good-faith exception. In light of our reasoning above, the good-faith issue is moot. Johnson’s first assignment of error is overruled.

This entry was posted in Overbreadth, Overseizure, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.