OH4: Failure to corroborate CI was a complete failure of PC, so no GFE either

The affidavit for search warrant here failed to show probable cause at all. It relied on informant hearsay from an identified informant. The trial court erroneously concluded that an identified informant didn’t have to be corroborated. In addition, probable cause was so lacking that the good faith exception doesn’t apply either. State v. Siegel, 2021-Ohio-4208, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 4108 (4th Dist. Nov. 24, 2021) (excellent discussion of Ohio cases):

[*P44] Here, however, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the judge who authorized the search warrant, or the judge who heard the suppression motion, considered anything beyond the four corners of the affidavit itself. If testimony was taken, it is not part of the record before us, unlike the situation in Keefer, where the executing officer testified during the suppression hearing “that he relied upon the prosecutor and the judge to acquire the warrant * * *.” Keefer, supra, at ¶ 40. What is apparent from the record, however, is that Sergeant Augenstein was the officer who supplied the affidavit in support of the search warrant, and he was also the officer who executed the search of the residence, along with other officers. See State v. Dalpiaz, supra, at ¶ 40 (noting the fact that the same officer obtained the search warrant and also executed the search warrant was “particularly apt” in holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply). Because we also find this factor “particularly apt” in the present case, we not only find that the affidavit failed to demonstrate probable cause in support of the issuance of the search warrant, we further conclude that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” that it rendered official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. Thus, Sergeant Augenstein’s reliance upon the warrant was not objectively reasonable.

[*P45] Here, Sergeant Augenstein did not simply execute a warrant in reliance upon the judge having determined that the underlying affidavit in support contained sufficient probable cause, he himself authored the affidavit that was filed in support of the search warrant. We conclude that the affidavit at issue here was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that a reasonably well-trained police officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the judge’s authorization. As observed in State v. Williams, supra, “the good-faith exception * * * is not a license to give an otherwise insufficient warrant validity.” Williams at ¶ 26. Sergeant Augenstein, who we presume is a reasonably well-trained officer, would have known, or at least should have known, that this affidavit was not sufficient and, as such, the facts presently before us warrant application of the exclusionary rule and do not fit within the good faith exception to the rule.