[Cite as State v. Simpson, 2024-Ohio-3116.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 vs.

CHRIS SIMPSON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL NO. C-230432 

TRIAL NO. B-2205178

 

O P I N I O N.

 

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

 

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 16, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Sarah E. Nelson, Assistant 

Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Chris Simpson was convicted, after pleading no contest, of ten counts of 

trafficking in various drugs. Prior to pleading no contest, Simpson filed a motion to 

suppress the evidence found in his storage unit, arguing that the affidavit in support 

of the warrant did not establish probable cause. After the court overruled the motion 

to suppress, Simpson pled no contest to the charges. On appeal, Simpson contends 

that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress. For the following 

reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Factual Background

{¶2} On October 25, 2022, following a traffic stop, Simpson was arrested for 

trafficking in and possession of heroin, cocaine, fentanyl-related compounds, and 

tramadol. Upon his arrest, Simpson requested to speak with Cincinnati police officers 

about cooperating for case consideration. During his police interview, Simpson 

admitted to the charged offenses, consented to a search of his phone, and provided 

information regarding suppliers of the drugs. 

{¶3} After the police interview, Simpson was incarcerated in the jail, and 

Cincinnati police investigator Molly Shust monitored his jail calls. In phone calls with 

his girlfriend and sister, Simpson instructed them to retrieve a set of keys that were in 

his vehicle that had been impounded by the Colerain police after his arrest. The keys 

included “red keys” that would unlock his storage unit and a key to unlock a safe 

contained in the storage unit. In one specific call, “Simpson repeatedly asked his sister 

and his girlfriend to go to the storage unit quickly to retrieve items.” He informed 

them of the location and number of the unit and shared the access code to enter the 

facility.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

3

{¶4} Shust confirmed with an employee of the storage facility that Simpson 

had recently rented storage unit # 1207 at iStorage located on Moellering Ave. Shust 

also confirmed with Colerain police that a set of red keys and a safe key were recovered 

from the vehicle upon Simpson’s arrest. Based on this information, Shust requested 

and obtained a search warrant for drugs, safes, drug paraphernalia, leasing and 

payment documentation, surveillance video, currency, financial records, and weapons 

contained in the storage unit. The affidavit in support of the warrant included that 

based on her six years of training and experience as a narcotics investigator, drug 

traffickers commonly maintain storage units to store contraband and its proceeds, 

illegal drugs, weapons to facilitate trafficking, packaging material, records, phones, 

paraphernalia, and currency derived from illegal drug sales. The warrant was 

executed, and officers found drugs and cash in the unit.

{¶5} Simpson filed a motion to suppress the evidence contending that the 

affidavit lacked a factual basis to establish probable cause to search the storage unit. 

The state filed a response, and both parties waived a hearing on the motion and 

submitted on the arguments contained in the pleadings. 

{¶6} The trial court made the following factual findings:

In this case, Simpson had admitted to and was already charged with 

drug trafficking. While Simpson was being held in the jail, the affiant 

officer monitored Simpson’s telephone calls. In the calls, Simpson 

provided specific information to his sister and girlfriend, which was 

further investigated and confirmed by the officer. Simpson also 

expressed an urgency for his sister and girlfriend to take steps to retrieve 

items from the safe located in his storage unit, which was further 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

4

evidence that the unit contained contraband.

{¶7} In overruling the motion to suppress, the court concluded that, “In 

applying a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis to the facts provided, the issuing 

judge’s determination of probable cause was sufficient to issue the warrant.” 

The Search Warrant and Affidavit

{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Simpson contends that the trial court 

erred in denying his motion to suppress because the affidavit was insufficient to 

support a finding of probable cause. 

{¶9} Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of 

law and fact. State v. Burnside, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. When ruling on a motion to 

suppress, this court must defer to the trial court’s factual findings if competent, 

credible evidence exists to support those findings. See id. “Accepting these facts as 

true, the appellate court must then independently determine, without deference to the 

conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” 

Id. When the trial court has denied the motion to suppress, “we review all evidence in 

a light most favorable to the Government.” United States v. Coffee, 434 F.3d 887, 892 

(6th Cir. 2006). 

{¶10} When a reviewing court determines that a warrant should not have 

been issued, it must then determine whether the good-faith exception applies, and that 

question is a question of law, subject to de novo review by the appellate court. State 

v. Castagnola, 2015-Ohio-1565, ¶ 32, citing United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 606 

(10th Cir. 1988).

{¶11} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, 

Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution provide that search warrants may only be issued 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

5

upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the 

place to be searched, and the person and/or things to be seized. See State v. Jones, 

2015-Ohio-483, ¶ 11. In determining the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit 

submitted in support of a search warrant, “[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply 

to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set 

forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of 

persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or 

evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place . . . .” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 

213, 238 (1983). An affidavit supporting a warrant need only contain a minimum 

connection between the place to be searched and the alleged criminal activity. State 

v. Schubert, 2022-Ohio-4604, ¶ 10. 

{¶12} In contrast, “the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the 

magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]’ that probable cause existed.” 

Gates at 238-239, quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, (1960); 

Castagnola at ¶ 35. In reviewing whether a search warrant has been issued upon 

probable cause, courts must examine the totality of the circumstances. Jones at ¶ 15. 

Appellate courts “should accord great deference to the magistrate’s determination of 

probable cause, and doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be resolved in favor 

of upholding the warrant.” State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989), paragraph two 

of the syllabus; Jones at ¶ 14.

{¶13} Simpson contends that the affidavit lacked a sufficient nexus connecting 

the storage unit to evidence of drugs and was based on generalized assumptions 

regarding drug trafficking. In making this argument, Simpson relies on State v. Perez, 

2015-Ohio-1753 (2d Dist.), which held that “the supporting affidavit must establish a 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

6

specific factual basis (as opposed to generalities) from which the magistrate is able to

conclude there is a fair probability that evidence of the suspected illegal activity will 

be discovered.” Id. at ¶ 16.

{¶14} In Perez, the investigating officer obtained a search warrant to search 

Perez’s home and vehicles after using a confidential informant to purchase drugs from 

Perez. Id. at ¶ 2. A search of the home yielded 1.5 pounds of marijuana, approximately 

$1,600 in United States currency, digital scales, Suboxone, grinder and pipe, and other 

drug paraphernalia. Id. In Perez’s truck, the officers found an envelope containing a 

welcome packet from a storage facility and two small keys under the envelope. Id. The 

officer confirmed that Perez had rented a storage locker at the facility, and the two 

keys were issued by the facility for the locker. Id. Based on that information, the 

officer obtained and executed a search warrant for the storage locker. Id.

{¶15} On appeal, the Second District affirmed the trial court’s judgment that 

the warrant was not based on probable cause, “as the affidavit in support fails to 

provide additional evidence, other than the Defendant’s lease of the storage locker, 

which would indicate that it would contain evidence of drug trafficking.” Id. at ¶ 6. 

The court explained that “[o]ther than finding the keys to a storage facility inside the 

vehicle of the Defendant, and the detectives’ assumptions as to how drug traffickers 

“usually operate”, there was no link between the Defendant’s illegal activities within 

his home and a fair probability that the storage locker would contain illegal narcotics 

and/or paraphernalia.” Id. at ¶ 13.

{¶16} Here, in addition to the general averments based on Shust’s training and 

experience, the affidavit contained sufficient facts to indicate a fair probability that 

evidence of the crimes of drug trafficking and/or possession would be found in the 
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

7

storage unit. The verifiable facts, included: (1) Simpson was charged with and 

admitted to multiple possession and trafficking offenses; (2) while incarcerated, Shust 

was monitoring his jail calls; (3) during a jailhouse call, Simpson informed his sister 

and girlfriend that he had a storage unit that contained a safe; (4) he informed them 

that the keys to the unit and safe were in his car, which had been impounded by 

Colerain police; (5) Simpson divulged the name and address of the storage facility, his 

unit number, and the code to enter the facility; (6) Simpson repeatedly expressed an 

immediate urgency for his sister and girlfriend to retrieve items from the safe and 

storage unit; (7) the officer confirmed that the keys had been found in Simpson’s 

vehicle; and (8) the officer confirmed with the facility that Simpson had recently 

rented the specific unit relayed to Simpson’s sister and girlfriend.

{¶17} From the affidavit, it is reasonable to infer that Simpson attempted to 

have his sister and girlfriend remove evidence of his drug trafficking from his storage 

unit. Thus, Simpson’s urgent requests to retrieve items from the storage unit 

established the evidentiary link between the suspected drug activity and the storage 

unit, and the court had a substantial basis for finding probable cause for the issuance 

of the warrant.

{¶18} Having determined that the court had a substantial basis for finding 

probable cause, this court need not determine whether the good-faith exception 

applies. See Castagnola, 2015-Ohio-1565, at ¶ 32.

{¶19} We overrule the assignment of error.

Conclusion
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

8

{¶20} Having overruled Simpson’s sole assignment of error, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

BERGERON and WINKLER, JJ., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its own entry this date.