OH10: Alleged violation of prosecutor’s subpoena power not subject to exclusionary rule; also, subject matter was third party record

A violation of the state prosecuting attorney’s subpoena power in felony cases was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In addition, obtaining third party information from an IP address is not a search. State v. Diaw, 2024-Ohio-2237, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 2106 (10th Dist. June 11, 2024).

Defendant showed a prima facie Franks violation from the affidavit conflating a father and son with the same first and last name. A hearing will be held. United States v. Alford, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103275 (M.D. Pa. June 11, 2024).

“We granted certiorari and posed the following question: ‘Does the independent source doctrine allow the admission of cell-phone evidence obtained via search warrant without consideration of whether the decision to seek the search warrant was prompted by a prior, warrantless search of that cell-phone?’ [¶] Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that courts must consider whether the State’s decision to seek a search warrant was so prompted. Because the record on appeal does not reflect that the trial court considered whether the warrant application was prompted in this way, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand with direction to vacate the judgment of the trial court and to remand to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Tatum v. State, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 137 (June 11, 2024).*