[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2016-Ohio-7823.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DEFIANCE COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 4-16-10 

 v. 

JAMISH L. ROBINSON, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 4-16-11 

 v. 

JAMISH L. ROBINSON, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeals from Defiance County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court Nos. 15 CR 12248 and 15 CR 12140 

Judgments Affirmed 

Date of Decision: November 21, 2016 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

W. Alex Smith for Appellant 

 Russell R. Herman for Appellee 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-2- 

PRESTON, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jamish L. Robinson (“Robinson”), appeals the 

April 20, 2016 judgment entries of sentence of the Defiance County Court of 

Common Pleas. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his 

motions to suppress evidence seized as a result of the execution of a search warrant 

that Robinson argues was not based on probable cause. For the reasons that follow, 

we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

{¶2} These cases stem from the execution of a search warrant issued for 

Robinson’s residence, after investigators learned that Robinson was the manager of 

Talk-N-Win, a suspected illegal-gambling establishment located at the Northtowne 

Mall in Defiance, Ohio. On February 5, 2015, the Defiance County Grand Jury 

indicted Robinson on: four counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of 

R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(a), fourth-degree felonies; one count of aggravated 

trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), (C)(1)(b), a third-degree 

felony; three counts of trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1), 

(C)(2)(a), fifth-degree felonies; two counts of aggravated possession of drugs in 

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a), fifth-degree felonies; and one count of 

possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(4)(a), a fifth-degree 

felony. (Case No. 15 CR 12140, Doc. No. 1). That case was assigned case No. 15 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-3- 

CR 12140, and Robinson pled not guilty to the counts of the indictment. (See Case 

No. 15 CR 12140, Doc. No. 4). 

{¶3} On May 13, 2015, the Defiance County Grand Jury indicted Robinson 

on four counts of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), fourthdegree felonies. (Case No. 15 CR 12248, Doc. No. 1). That case was assigned case 

No. 15 CR 12248, and Robinson pled not guilty to the counts of that indictment. 

(See Case No. 15 CR 12248, Doc. No. 5). 

{¶4} On October 19, 2015, Robinson filed motions to suppress evidence in 

each case. (Case No. 15 CR 12140, Doc. No. 15); (Case No. 15 CR 12248, Doc. 

No. 7). In those identical motions, Robinson argued that the search warrant was not 

supported by probable cause because there was no evidence that illegal gambling 

took place at his residence or that any part of Talk-N-Win was run out of his 

residence. (Id.); (Id.). The trial court held a hearing on Robinson’s motions to 

suppress on November 24, 2015. (Nov. 24, 2015 Tr. at 3). The trial court denied 

Robinson’s motions to suppress on December 7, 2015. (Case No. 15 CR 12140, 

Doc. No. 16); (Case No. 15 CR 12248, Doc. No. 8). 

{¶5} The trial court held a change-of-plea hearing on February 9, 2016. (Feb. 

9, 2016 Tr. at 2). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Robinson pled no contest: in case 

No. 15 CR 12140, to the count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 

2925.11(A), (C)(4)(a), and to one of the counts of aggravated possession of drugs 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-4- 

in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a); in case No. 15 CR 12248, to two of the 

counts of receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A). (Id. at 4-5, 11). 

The trial court accepted Robinson’s pleas and found him guilty on those counts. (Id.

at 12-13); (Case No. 15 CR 12140, Doc. No. 18); (Case No. 15 CR 12248, Doc. No. 

10). 

{¶6} On April 12, 2016, the trial court sentenced Robinson and, consistent 

with the plea agreement, dismissed the remaining counts of the indictments. (Apr. 

12, 2016 Tr. at 2, 5); (Case No. 15 CR 12140, Doc. No. 26); (Case No. 15 CR 12248, 

Doc. No. 18). The trial court filed its judgment entries of sentence on April 20, 

2016. (Case No. 15 CR 12140, Doc. No. 26); (Case No. 15 CR 12248, Doc. No. 

18). 

{¶7} Robinson timely filed notices of appeal in each case. (Case No. 15 CR 

12140, Doc. No. 23); (Case No. 15 CR 12248, Doc. No. 15). He raises one 

assignment of error for our review. 

Assignment of Error 

The trial court erred when they [sic] overruled the motion to 

suppress evidence in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendment 

[sic] to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 14 of 

the Ohio Constitution. 

{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Robinson argues that the trial court erred 

by denying his motion to suppress because the “[search] warrant should not have 

been issued due to insufficient, credible information in the supporting affidavit.” 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-5- 

(Appellant’s Brief at 5). Specifically, Robinson argues “that there was no indication 

of criminal activity occurring in the home when the target was Mr. Robinson’s place 

of employment.” (Id.). 

{¶9} A review of the denial of a motion to suppress involves mixed questions 

of law and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. At a 

suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is 

in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. Id. See 

also State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 552 (1995). When reviewing a ruling on a 

motion to suppress, “an appellate court must accept the trial court’s findings of fact 

if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.” Burnside at ¶ 8, citing State 

v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982). With respect to the trial court’s conclusions of 

law, however, our standard of review is de novo, and we must independently 

determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. Id., citing State v. 

McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (4th Dist.1997). 

{¶10} Robinson argues that the search warrant was not supported by 

probable cause, in violation of his constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution 

generally prohibit warrantless searches and seizures, and any evidence obtained 

during an unlawful search or seizure will be excluded from being used against the 

defendant. State v. Jenkins, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-10-10, 2010-Ohio-5943, ¶ 9; 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-6- 

State v. Steinbrunner, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-11-27, 2012-Ohio-2358, ¶ 12. 

“Neither the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution nor Section 14, 

Article I of the Ohio Constitution explicitly provides that violations of its provisions 

against unlawful searches and seizures will result in the suppression of evidence 

obtained as a result of such violation, but the United States Supreme Court has held 

that the exclusion of evidence is an essential part of the Fourth Amendment.” 

Jenkins at ¶ 9, citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 649, 81 S.Ct. 1684 (1961) and 

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 394, 34 S.Ct. 341 (1914). 

{¶11} “A warrant must be based on probable cause, supported by an oath or 

affirmation, and contain a particular description of ‘the place to be searched, and the 

persons or things to be seized.’” State v. Amodio, 9th Dist. Medina No. 11CA0048-

M, 2012-Ohio-2682, ¶ 7, quoting the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

“The probable cause standard falls below both the reasonable doubt and 

preponderance of the evidence standards.” State v. Ortega, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 

5-11-46, 2012-Ohio-5953, ¶ 25. The Supreme Court of Ohio articulated the 

probable-cause standard required to support a search warrant: 

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 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-7- 

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.” 

State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1989), paragraph one of the syllabus, quoting 

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-239, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (1983). In other words, 

“[t]he amount of proof sufficient for a probable cause determination does not 

necessarily require certainty that criminal activity is occurring at the defendant’s 

premises.” State v. Garza, 3d Dist. Henry No. 7-13-04, 2013-Ohio-5492, ¶ 32. 

Only the probability—and not a prima facie showing—of criminal activity is the 

standard of probable cause. Id., citing George at 329. 

{¶12} The Supreme Court of Ohio also articulated the standard applied in 

reviewing the sufficiency of probable cause: 

In reviewing the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit 

submitted in support of a search warrant issued by a magistrate, 

neither a trial court nor an appellate court should substitute its 

judgment for that of the magistrate by conducting a de novo

determination as to whether the affidavit contains sufficient probable 

cause upon which that court would issue the search warrant. Rather, 

the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate 

had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. In 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-8- 

conducting any after-the-fact scrutiny of an affidavit submitted in 

support of a search warrant, trial and 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. 

George at paragraph two of the syllabus, citing Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317. 

{¶13} We conclude that the judge who issued the search warrant had a 

substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Special Agent Edward 

Biederstedt (“Biederstedt”) of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and 

Investigation swore to the affidavit supporting the search warrant application. (Nov. 

24, 2015 Tr., Ex. 1). Biederstedt stated that he has 27 years of law-enforcement 

experience and that he had good cause to believe that Robinson’s residence 

contained evidence of illegal gambling, money laundering, and engaging in a pattern 

of corrupt activity. (Id. at 1-3). Biederstedt averred that he assisted Major Case 

Investigator Damon Roberts (“Roberts”) in the covert investigation of Talk-N-Win. 

(Id.). The affidavit details visits that Roberts made to Talk-N-Win on November 29 

and 30, 2014, during which Roberts used covert funds to obtain a “player’s card” to 

play games at gaming terminals. (Id. at 4-9). During each of those visits, Roberts 

asked that a certain sum of money be placed on his player’s card, then he played 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-9- 

games at gaming terminals and, when he was finished playing, retrieved winnings 

from his player’s card in excess of the initial sum on his player’s card. (Id.).

{¶14} The affidavit also details a visit that Biederstedt and Roberts made to 

Talk-N-Win on December 14, 2014. (Id. at 9-11). During that visit, they observed 

“behind the counter/desk” a man later identified as Robinson. (Id. at 9). The amount 

on Biederstedt’s player’s card increased as he played games at gaming terminals, 

and he eventually retrieved winnings from his player’s card in excess of the initial 

sum on his player’s card. (Id.). When Biederstedt approached the counter with his 

player’s card after ending play, there was a different person—a female—behind the 

counter. (Id. at 10-11). Roberts and Biederstedt were at Talk-N-Win for 

approximately 35 minutes. (Id. at 9, 11). Biederstedt averred that he “received 

previous credible source information that Jamish Robinson is the Manager of TalkN-Win.” (Id. at 11). 

{¶15} Biederstedt also averred that, on December 16, 2014, he and a deputy 

observed Robinson leave his residence—an apartment—in a vehicle registered to 

him. (Id.). The vehicle went from the “residence to the rear parking lot of the 

Northtowne Mall, near the entrance to the Talk-N-Win.” (Id.). Biederstedt later 

observed Robinson “in front of the entrance to the Talk-N-Win.” (Id.). “A short 

time later Robinson exited the rear entrance of the mall and entered back in his 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-10- 

vehicle.” (Id.). He exited the mall parking lot and returned to his residence. (Id.). 

Biederstedt continues in his affidavit: 

7. Special Agent Biederstedt states that the evidence obtained from 

this investigation has provided information concerning illegal 

gambling in the Defiance, Defiance County, Ohio area. 

8. Special Agent Biederstedt is aware that illegal gambling 

activities involve the transfer of large quantities of cash and such 

transactions involve records and documents relating to illegal 

gambling and accompanying cash transfers. 

9. Special Agent Biederstedt holds personal knowledge–that 

individuals involved in gambling activities maintain log books, 

records, payment receipts, notes, customer lists, ledgers, and other 

records and documents, stored on their computers in electronic 

format. Special Agent Biederstedt is also aware that these records 

may be kept and stored at the personal residences of the owners and/or 

managers of the business. Through the technology available today 

individuals can access records and perform business functions 

through the leisure of their home residence. 

10. Special Agent Biederstedt [sic] personal experience and training, 

is aware that individuals involved in illegal gambling activity and/or 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-11- 

money laundering may maintain their own security by use of firearms 

and other weapons. 

(Id.). 

{¶16} We conclude that the judge who issued the search warrant had a 

substantial basis for concluding that, given all the circumstances set forth in 

Biederstedt’s affidavit, there was a fair probability that evidence of illegal gambling, 

money laundering, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity would be found at 

Robinson’s residence. During their investigation, Biederstedt and Roberts engaged 

in illegal gambling at Talk-N-Win. Biederstedt observed Robinson behind the 

counter/desk at Talk-N-Win and learned during his investigation that Robinson was 

the manager of Talk-N-Win. He also observed Robinson leave his residence, enter 

Talk-N-Win for a short time, then return to his residence. Biederstedt also averred 

that today’s technology allows managers of illegal gambling operations to perform 

business functions remotely, including from their homes. We hold that, given all of 

these circumstances, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that 

probable cause existed. See State/City of Alliance v. Birch, 5th Dist. Stark No. 

1997CA00333, 1998 WL 525799, *3 (Mar. 30, 1998) (“find[ing] sufficient 

evidence to support probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant” for the 

residence of the defendant, who was observed conducting gambling activities at a 

lounge and travelling between his residence and the lounge, and who told an officer 
Case Nos. 4-16-10, 4-16-11 

-12- 

who placed a bet that “he had to go home to ‘get the odds and the lines, the latest 

from Vegas’”). 

{¶17} For these reasons, the trial court did not err in denying Robinson’s 

motions to suppress. Robinson’s assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶18} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the 

particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 

Judgments Affirmed 

WILLAMOWSKI and ROGERS, J.J., concur. 

/jlr