“Based on the language in the [Fourth Amendment] and Ohio Constitutions, we now hold that material witnesses are entitled to these basic, fundamental rights and therefore agree with the Eighth District that the state’s request for a warrant to detain a material witness must be by oath or affirmation and be supported by probable cause to believe that the witness is material and that the warrant is necessary to procure the witness’s attendance at trial. Federal courts have also held as much.” State v. Eatmon, 2022-Ohio-1197, 2022 Ohio LEXIS 721 (Apr. 12, 2022).
“At issue on appeal is (1) whether the district court erred when it found that the consent, automobile, and emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement were met such as to allow the admittance of the severed leg and arm found in the trunk of the Impala and (2) whether the plain view doctrine allowed the admission of the bloodied clothes found in the Galvan garage and the bloodied boots found in the Galvan residence. In addition, Surber challenges a second warrant authorizing searches of the Impala and the Yukon because those warrants were authorized with reference to the prior claimed unlawful searches of the Impala and the Galvan residence.” In light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, this is harmless error if error at all. State v. Surber, 311 Neb. 320 (Apr. 8, 2022).*