A municipal judge issued a DNA warrant for a person outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. While it violated state statute, that did not make a constitutional violation warranting suppression of evidence. The same applies to the officers executing the warrant. State v. Bowman, 2006 Ohio 6146, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 6094 (10th Dist. November 21, 2006):<\/p>\n
[*P12] R.C. 1901.02 establishes that the jurisdiction of municipal courts is “within the corporate limits of their respective municipal corporations,” and it designates them to be “courts of record.” R.C. 1901.02(A). The Franklin County Municipal Court has jurisdiction within Franklin County. R.C. 1901.02(B). Neither a statutory violation, nor a violation of Crim.R. 41, requires suppression of the DNA evidence at issue if the search and seizure was constitutionally sound.<\/p>\n
[*P13] Within those general parameters, defendant does not assert the court acted unconstitutionally in issuing the search warrant. Specifically, he does not challenge the issuing court’s determination of probable cause. Similarly, defendant does not allege that the judge who issued the warrant was anything other than neutral and detached. Nor does defendant suggest police misconduct, such as judge shopping, or contend that absent the warrant at issue, the search would not have occurred, for the warrant could have been obtained as easily from the Pickaway County Municipal Court and would have resulted in law enforcement’s obtaining the same DNA evidence.<\/p>\n
[*P14] Rather defendant contends a statutory violation occurred when the court issued the warrant. Although the relevant statutory provisions were violated, suppression is not required because no constitutional violation occurred. State v. Hardy <\/em>(Aug. 28, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16964, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 3928 (holding that although the municipal court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to issue the warrant, suppression of the evidence was not necessary where the warrant was based on probable cause, the officers could have just as easily obtained a warrant from the proper jurisdictional court, and no evidence suggested police misconduct such as judge shopping); State v. Wilmoth<\/em> (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 251, 22 Ohio B. 427, 490 N.E.2d 1236.<\/p>\n
[*P15] Defendant also argues that suppression is required because the Columbus officers violated pertinent statutes in executing the warrant in Pickaway County, outside their jurisdictional limits. Generally, a police officer does not have the statutory authority to execute a search warrant outside his or her jurisdiction. Klemm; State v. Adams<\/em> (Mar. 29, 2001), Franklin App. No. 00AP-850, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 1448; State v. Leadingham<\/em> (Feb. 6, 1990), Scioto App. No. CA-1753, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 385. Where, however, “probable cause exists to issue a search warrant, the search will be deemed constitutional even though the warrant was executed by police officers outside of their jurisdictional limits.” Id.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Trial court’s finding that stop of vehicle in a “violent housing project” “was more akin to a hunch than it was to the suspicion needed to justify the stop” was supported by the record and affirmed. State v. Hill, 2006 Ohio 6118, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 6091 (2d Dist. November 17, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading