OH11: Probable cause is but a fair probability, not by a preponderance of the evidence, nor even a prima facie showing

Probable cause is but a fair probability, not by a preponderance of the evidence, nor even a prima facie showing. State v. Tuff, 2011 Ohio 6846, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 5672 (11th Dist. December 30, 2011):

In regard to the “probable cause” determination for a valid search warrant, the courts of this state have noted that “‘the task of the issuing (judge) is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, (***) there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’” State v. Young, 12th Dist. No. CA2005-08074, 2006 Ohio 1784, at ¶19, quoting State v. George (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d 640, paragraph one of the syllabus. To satisfy this standard, it is not necessary for the affidavit to show the existence of criminal activity by a preponderance of the evidence; in this respect, not even a prima facie showing is mandated to justify the issuance of the search warrant. State v. Montgomery (Aug. 29, 1997), 11th Dist. No. 95-P-0034, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3880, at *3.

Controlled buys by a CI from defendant’s house was probable cause for issuing a search warrant. State v. Shearer, 2011 Ohio 6835, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 5661 (11th Dist. December 30, 2011).*