[Cite as State v. Muhlenkamp, 2017-Ohio-8352.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MERCER COUNTY 

 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 10-17-05 

 v. 

JERROD W. MUHLENKAMP, O P I N I O N 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. 

 

Appeal from Mercer County Common Pleas Court 

Trial Court No. 16-CRM-086 

Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded 

Date of Decision: October 23, 2017 

 

APPEARANCES: 

 

Matthew K. Fox and Joshua A. Muhlenkamp for Appellant 

 James A. Tesno for Appellee 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-2- 

ZIMMERMAN, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, the State of Ohio (“the State”), appeals the judgment of the 

Mercer County Common Pleas Court that granted Appellee, Jerrod W. 

Muhlenkamp’s (“Muhlenkamp”), motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, 

we reverse the judgment of the trial court. 

Facts and Procedural History 

{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal involve the search of Muhlenkamp’s 

residence. Muhlenkamp had been under probation supervision of the Mercer 

County Adult Probation Department since 2010. His probation officer was Dane 

Gross (“Gross”). As a part of his supervision, the trial court set out community 

control sanctions, which Muhlenkamp signed and agreed to on December 30, 2013. 

(Ex. 1). Muhlenkamp’s community control sanctions required him “to submit to 

searches, without a warrant, of his person, vehicle, or place of residence by a 

probation officer”. Id. The community control sanctions also included the 

requirement for Muhlenkamp to submit to random drug screens. Id. 

{¶3} Pursuant to the terms of his probation, Muhlenkamp submitted to an 

eye scan, a preliminary test for illicit drug usage, at the Mercer County Sheriff’s 

Office on July 5, 2016. Muhlenkamp failed the scan and was directed, by Gross, to 

submit to a urine sample for drugs. Muhlenkamp refused to take the test which 

resulted in the determination that he failed the urine test and was in violation of his 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-3- 

community control sanctions. Further, on that same date, Gross received 

information (from another probation officer) that Muhlenkamp was actively using 

methamphetamines and was potentially manufacturing methamphetamines at his 

residence. Lastly, and again on that date, Gross received a phone call from Sgt. 

Link, of the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department, expressing concern of 

Muhlenkamp’s recent paranoid behavior and suspected drug usage. 

{¶4} With this information, Gross planned to arrest Muhlenkamp at his 

residence and search it for drugs and for evidence of a “meth lab”. To accomplish 

his search for a “meth lab”, Gross sought the assistance of the Grand Lake Task 

Force, for safety measures, due to the potential that “dangerous chemicals” may be 

involved. (Tr. 12-13). 

{¶5} On July 7, 2016, Gross, along with members of the Grand Lake Task 

Force, arrived at Muhlenkamp’s residence. At the direction of Gross, the Task 

Force officers commenced a search of the outbuildings while he (Gross) knocked 

on the front door of the residence in order to find Muhlenkamp. When no one 

answered the door of the residence, Gross joined the Task Force officers in the 

search of the outbuildings. Ultimately, the search of the outbuildings yielded no 

evidence of a “meth lab”, so the group concluded its search and decided to leave the 

residence. However, when leaving the premises, Gross observed Muhlenkamp 

seated on the back patio of the residence. Gross, accompanied by the Task Force 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-4- 

officers, approached Muhlenkamp on the patio. When speaking to Gross and the 

officers, Muhlenkamp became agitated and began yelling at the Task Force Officers. 

(Tr. 19). Gross suspected that Muhlenkamp was under the influence of “meth” and 

asked Muhlenkamp to submit to a drug screen. Muhlenkamp agreed but told Gross 

that he would test “dirty”. (Tr. 19). Gross then made the decision to arrest 

Muhlenkamp for violating his probation. However, since Muhlenkamp was a 

double leg amputee and was not wearing his prosthetic legs at the time, Gross 

assisted him into the residence to retrieve his prosthetics prior to formally arresting 

him. Once inside the residence, Muhlenkamp advised Gross that he had a digital 

scale in his bedroom closet, which Gross found. (Tr. 20). 

{¶6} Gross then arrested Muhlenkamp. After arresting and securing 

Muhlenkamp into the custody of another law enforcement officer for transportation 

to the county jail, Gross and Sgt. Crum, a member of the Grand Lake Task Force, 

remained in Muhlenkamp’s residence. It was Gross’s decision to remain in the 

residence to search Muhlenkamp’s bedroom after Muhlenkamp was arrested and 

removed. Thereafter, and at Gross’s direction, Sgt. Crum searched Muhlenkamp’s 

dresser wherein he found “rolling” papers and some plastic baggies stuffed into a 

Marlboro cigarette pack. (Tr. 42). When he opened the baggies, Sgt. Crum 

recognized its contents to be crystal methamphetamine. (Tr. 42). At that time, the 

search concluded so the Task Force could secure a warrant to proceed further. 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-5- 

{¶7} On July 22, 2016, Muhlenkamp was indicted on one count of 

Aggravated Possession of Drugs, in violation of ORC 2925.11(A), 

2925.11(C)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth degree. (Doc. 5). On July 27, 2016, 

Muhlenkamp entered a plea of not guilty. (Doc. 16). On March 14, 2017, 

Muhlenkamp filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence found in his home claiming 

the search of his residence was “beyond the scope of what would be referred to as a 

‘probationers search’ ”. (Doc. 68). On April 12, 2017 the trial court granted 

Muhlenkamp’s Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 79). It is from this decision that the State 

appeals raising the following assignment of error. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT SUPPRESSED 

EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE 

DURING A SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE DEFENDANT’S 

PROBATIONS [SIC] OFFICER AND LAW ENFORCEMENT 

OFFICERS WHO WERE PRESENT TO ASSIST THE 

PROBATION OFFICER IN CONDUCTING A SEARCH. 

{¶8} Under its sole assignment of error, the State contends that the trial court 

improperly granted Muhlenkamp’s motion to suppress, arguing that law 

enforcement officers may assist probation officers in warrantless searches of 

probationers that are under community control sanctions. 

Standard of Review 

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

law and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶8. When 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-6- 

considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and 

is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate the 

credibility of witnesses. State v. Schmidt, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 13CA010499, 2015-

Ohio-146, citing Burnside, Id. Consequently, an appellate court must accept the 

trial court’s findings of facts if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. 

Burnside at ¶8, citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19. Regarding the trial court’s 

conclusion of law, however, we must independently determine, without deference 

to the conclusion of the trial court, whether the factual findings satisfy the legal 

standard as a matter of law, because “the application of the law to the trial court’s 

findings of fact is subject to a de novo standard of review”. State v. Persinger, 3d 

Dist. Marion No. 9-15-10, ¶9, citing State v. Norman, 136 Ohio App.3d 46, 52. 

Probation and Parole Officer Searches 

{¶10} It is well established that consent to a warrantless search will not be 

held invalid nor the resulting search unreasonable when one with authority over the 

premises voluntarily permits the search. State v. Morris, 48 Ohio App.3d 137, 

paragraph two of the syllabus. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment protection against 

unreasonable searches and seizures is less severe, however, when applied to 

probationers or parolees if a warrantless search is conducted pursuant to a valid state 

regulation. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S.Ct. 3164 (1987). 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-7- 

{¶11} In Griffin, the United States Supreme Court recognized that a State’s 

operation of a probation system, “presents ‘special needs’ beyond normal law 

enforcement that may justify departures from the usual warrant and probable-cause 

requirements”. Id. Furthermore, “a warrantless search performed pursuant to a 

condition of parole requiring a parolee to submit to random searches of his or her 

person, motor vehicle, or place of residence by a parole officer at any time is 

constitutional.” State v. McCain, 154 Ohio App.3d 380, 2003-Ohio-4890 (2003), 

citing State v. Benton, 82 Ohio St.3d 316, 321. “There is no material difference 

between probationers and parolees with regard to constitutional guarantees.” 

McCain, citing State v. McKinney, 112 Ohio Misc.2d 30, 34 (2000), citing State v. 

Roberts, 32 Ohio St.3d 225, 229 (1987). “Therefore, the rationale supporting the 

Benton holding also applies to persons subject to community-control sanctions, and 

warrantless searches conducted pursuant to a condition of community control are 

constitutional”. McCain, citing McKinney, Id. 

{¶12} Moreover, conditions to probation or parole are undoubtedly related 

to the “interests of doing justice, rehabilitating the offender, and insuring his good 

behavior”. State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 (1990). Furthermore, “a consensual 

search pursuant to such conditions and regulations has been upheld as being an 

exemption to the warrant requirement”. State v. Braxton, 102 Ohio App.3d 28 

(1995). 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-8- 

Analysis 

{¶13} In our review of the record we disagree with the trial court’s 

determination that the search of Muhlenkamp’s residence was a pretextual search. 

Instead, we find that Gross was the person who contacted the Task Force and 

requested assistance to search for a possible “meth lab” at Muhlenkamp’s residence. 

Gross’s choice (to seek assistance from the Task Force to search for a “meth lab”) 

was a prudent one in light of the potentially dangerous chemicals associated with a 

“meth lab”.1

 

{¶14} If law enforcement rather than probation supervision was the primary 

purpose of the search of Muhlenkamp’s dresser, the search in this case would be 

improper. However, “collaboration between a probation officer and police does not 

in itself render a probation search unlawful”. State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68, 

quoting State v. Watts, 67 F.3d 790, at 794. 

{¶15} In this case, Gross and the Task Force members had completed their 

search for a meth lab and were in the process of leaving Muhlenkamp’s property 

when Gross spotted him on the patio. It was Gross’s decision to approach 

Muhlenkamp, not the Task Force officers. And when Muhlenkamp admitted to 

being “dirty”, Gross started the process of arresting Muhlenkamp for a probation 

 

1

 Please see R.C. 2933.33 wherein the state legislature has determined that the illegal manufacturing of 

methamphetamines involves the potential for causing injury to the public and thereby presents a matter of 

exigent circumstances relative to a search. 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-9- 

violation. Since their search for a “meth lab” was contained only to outbuildings 

and not Muhlenkamp’s residence, and had concluded, the Task Force officers were 

available to assist in the arrest of Muhlenkamp. Once the arrest was completed, 

Gross searched Muhlenkamp’s bedroom, with the assistance of Sgt. Crum, for 

evidence relative to Muhlenkamp’s probation violation. The absence of 

Muhlenkamp in the residence during the search is immaterial since Gross was 

authorized to search the residence pursuant to the terms of Muhlenkamp’s 

community control. 

{¶16} Moreover, the facts presented do not constitute a pretextual or a 

“stalking horse” search since Gross’s request for assistance of the Task Force was a 

reasonable one (and necessary to locate and secure a “meth lab” that may have been 

operated by Muhlenkamp) due to the danger presented. More importantly, when no 

lab was found on the premises, the Task Force did nothing further relative to a search 

of Muhlenkamp or his residence on its own. And only after Gross requested the 

assistance of Sgt. Crum to search Muhlenkamp’s dresser, were drugs located. 

{¶17} Thus, because Gross was authorized to search Muhlenkamp’s 

residence as a condition of his community control and because Sgt. Crum searched 

the dresser at Gross’s behest, the search herein was not pretextual, and was valid. 

{¶18} Accordingly, the trial court erred in sustaining the motion to suppress. 
Case No. 10-17-05 

-10- 

{¶19} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the 

particulars assigned and argued, we reverse the judgment of the Mercer County 

Common Pleas Court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. 

Judgment Reversed and 

Cause Remanded 

PRESTON, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur. 

/jlr