State v. Maranger

Citations

• 2018 Ohio 1425
• 110 N.E.3d 895

Syllabus

The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's motion to suppress with respect to search warrants issued on September 22, 2015, November 10, 2015, November 12, 2015, and May 4, 2016. Appellant's live-in girlfriend possessed the apparent authority to allow police into appellant's residence and to take possession of appellant's computer to which the girlfriend stated everyone in the house had access. The search warrants issued for appellant's residence, computer, and motor vehicle were supported by probable cause, were not stale, and were not overbroad nor lacking in specificity. Additionally, pursuant to R.C. 2971.01(H)(2)(f), the evidence obtained from the search warrants issued and executed in Wisconsin is admissible in the instant case because it can be used to support appellant's convictions for the sexually violent predator specifications. Since none of the evidence seized as a result of the search warrants issued for appellant's cellphone and 3 x 5 binder was admitted at trial, any invalidity of those warrants is moot. Because appellant did not make incriminating statements to law enforcement from Wisconsin regarding sex offenses alleged to have occurred, any purported Miranda violation is moot. Because appellant's earlier written and oral statements were obtained as a result of his sex offender treatment and not the result of a custodial interrogation, it was not necessary for parole officers to advise appellant of his Miranda rights. Furthermore, even if the admission of these statements was error, it was harmless and did not ultimately affect the outcome of the trial in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Judgment affirmed.