OH3: Parole search authority is statutory, not coerced consent

The parole search statute governs parole searches. It is not a matter of coerced consent. State v. Harrison, 2024-Ohio-884, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 816 (3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2024).

Civil Franks violation: “The omission of the full timeline is material because a corrected affidavit fails to establish even arguable probable cause. If the affidavit’s omissions are corrected, then the Hubbards were alive for hours after Sylvester was inside the home for the last time. And nothing in the affidavit explains how Sylvester could have strangled the Hubbards and started a fire from inside the house shortly before 4:00 a.m. on July 3 when he never reentered Deborah’s home after 9:00 p.m. on July 2. No person of reasonable caution reading a corrected version of Detective Barnett’s affidavit could think there was a substantial chance that Sylvester killed the Hubbards and set fire to the house. Quite the opposite: any ‘reasonable law officer [with knowledge of the omitted information] would have known’ that submitting the affidavit that Detective Barnett submitted ‘would lead to [an arrest] in violation of federal law.’ Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Haygood v. Johnson, 70 F.3d 92, 95 (11th Cir. 1995)).” The omitted information probably will lead to a denial of qualified immunity. Reversed. Sylvester v. Fulton Cty. Jail, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5797 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.