State v. Jones

Citations

• 258 N.E.3d 626
• 2024 Ohio 5501

Syllabus

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — COUNSEL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – FOURTH AMENDMENT– PROTECTIVE SWEEP – INEVITABLE DISCOVERY – SEARCH WARRANT – AFFIDAVIT – SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE: Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of a consent search and protective sweep of the home. [But see DISSENT: Defendant was not prejudiced by any alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel for failing to challenge the constitutionality of the search and protective sweep of the home because defendant lacked standing to contest the search of a safe found in the home, the protective sweep was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence in the safe would have inevitably been discovered.] The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence because officers searched the home under a good-faith belief that a tenant had authority to authorize a search of the home, there was probable cause to issue a warrant to search a safe recovered from the home where the facts in the affidavit established a nexus between defendant and the drugs in the safe, and competent and credible evidence supported the trial court's finding that the officer did not misidentify the tenant as a homeowner in reckless disregard for the truth. [See CONCURRENCE: While the search of the home was conducted in good faith, it is not necessary to reach that issue because the safe would inevitably have been discovered.] The State's evidence was sufficient to prove that drugs recovered from a safe belonged to defendant because officer testimony and photographs of the contents of the safe showed papers belonging to defendant in the safe alongside drugs and drug paraphernalia. [See CONCURRENCE: The evidence was sufficient to show that defendant had possessed the drugs, and his convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.]