[Cite as State v. Kellett, 2022-Ohio-4340.]

COURT OF APPEALS

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

Hon. John W. Wise, J.

-vsCase No. 2022 CA 00015

RONALD A. KELLETT

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 21 CR 00429

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 2, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

JENNY WELLS APRIL F. CAMPBELL

Licking County Prosecutor Campbell Law, LLC

545 Metro Place South – Suite #100

ROBERT N. ABDALLA Dublin, Ohio 43017

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

20 S. Second Street

Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 2

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ronald Kellett appeals the judgment entered by the 

Licking County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of no contest to 

illegal use of a minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance (R.C. 

2907.323(A)(1)) and two counts of voyeurism (R.C. 2907.08(B),(C)), and sentencing him 

to an aggregate term of incarceration of three years. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} In 2019, Appellant pled guilty in the Licking County Municipal Court to public 

indecency, aggravated trespass, criminal trespass, and menacing. He was convicted 

and placed on probation for three years. Appellant initialed the conditions of his probation 

and signed the probation notice. The terms of his probation included the following:

6. During your period of probation, probation officers who are 

engaged within the scope of their supervisory duties may search with or 

without a warrant...another item of tangible or intangible personal 

property... in which you have a right, title, or interest.

14. During your period of probation, you will not...possess...or 

search for any legal or illegal pornography. [...] To ensure your compliancy 

[sic] Probation Officers may search devices owned or used by you. 

Searchable devices would include...cell phones.

{¶3} On June 19, 2021, Appellant’s probation officer, Brent Richter, received a 

police report which indicated Appellant was arrested at the Hartford Fair. Appellant was 

found near the women’s restroom naked from the waist down, and appeared to be 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 3

intoxicated. Richter also received witness statements indicating Appellant was possibly 

taking pictures with a cell phone. Sgt. Brown of the Licking County Sheriff’s Department 

called Richter, and told Richter deputies had received multiple complaints from victims 

Appellant was taking cell phone photos.

{¶4} Richter went to Appellant’s home on June 24, 2021. He met with 

Appellant’s wife, who retrieved Appellant’s cell phone and gave Richter the passcode. 

Richter searched the phone and discovered multiple explicit videos and images of 

females in a bathroom in various stages of undress, and a video of Appellant setting up 

a camera in a bathroom. In addition, Appellant’s browser history included searches for 

“Watching My Neighbor Pee” and “Watching My Kid Pee.” Supp. Tr. 31.

{¶5} Appellant was indicted by the Licking County Grand Jury for illegal use of a 

minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance and two counts of 

voyeurism. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence retrieved from his cell phone, 

arguing his wife did not have authority to consent to the search of his phone, the police 

officer acted as a “stalking horse” for law enforcement in searching the phone, and the 

officer did not have reasonable cause to search the phone as required by R.C. 

2951.02(A). The trial court overruled the motion, finding Richter had reasonable grounds 

to believe Appellant was engaged in activity in violation of his probation while at the 

Hartford Fair, and to believe evidence of such activity was in Appellant’s cell phone based 

on the police report, witness statements, and Richter’s conversation with Sgt. Brown.

{¶6} Appellant thereafter pled no contest to all charges. The trial court merged 

one conviction of voyeurism with the conviction of illegal use of a minor or impaired person 

in nudity-oriented material or performance, with the State electing sentencing on illegal 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 4

use of a minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance. The trial 

court sentenced Appellant to three years incarceration for illegal use of a minor or 

impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance and ninety days in the Licking 

County Justice Center for the remaining voyeurism conviction, to be served concurrently 

for an aggregate term of three years incarceration. It is from the March 4, 2022 judgment 

of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE SUPPRESSED THE 

EVIDENCE AGAINST KELLETT BECAUSE PROBATION OFFICER 

RICHTER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS UNDER R.C. 

2951.02 TO SEARCH KELLETT’S CELL PHONE.

{¶7} Appellant does not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact. Rather, 

Appellant argues the statements of witnesses Appellant was “possibly” using his cell 

phone to take photographs at the fair provided Richter with nothing more than a hunch 

material in violation of the law or the terms of Appellant’s probation would be found on the 

phone.

{¶8} R.C. 2951.02(A) provides in pertinent part:

During the period of a misdemeanor offender's community control 

sanction or during the period of a felony offender's nonresidential 

sanction, authorized probation officers who are engaged within the 

scope of their supervisory duties or responsibilities may search, with or 

without a warrant, the person of the offender, the place of residence of 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 5

the offender, and a motor vehicle, another item of tangible or intangible 

personal property, or other real property in which the offender has a 

right, title, or interest or for which the offender has the express or implied 

permission of a person with a right, title, or interest to use, occupy, or 

possess if the probation officers have reasonable grounds to believe that 

the offender is not abiding by the law or otherwise is not complying with 

the conditions of the misdemeanor offender's community control 

sanction or the conditions of the felony offender's nonresidential 

sanction.

{¶9} We find the trial court did not err in finding Richter had reasonable grounds 

to believe evidence of violation of the law or the terms of his probation would be found on 

Appellant’s cell phone. Appellant was found outside the women’s restroom intoxicated, 

and naked from the waist down. Multiple witness statements indicated he might have 

been taking pictures with his cell phone. Despite the fact these statements used phrasing 

such as “possibly,” we find the multiple witness statements indicating Appellant’s use of 

the cell phone, coupled with the circumstances in which Appellant was found half-naked

near the women’s restroom, provided the officer with reasonable cause to believe 

evidence of violation of the law or Appellant’s probation might be found on the cell phone.

{¶10} Further, we note Appellant relies on this Court’s decision in State v. 

Campbell, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2019 CA 00055, 2020-Ohio-4119, 157 N.E.3d 373 for 

the proposition R.C. 2951.02 provides statutory protection against warrantless searches 

in addition to those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment which implicate the 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 6

exclusionary rule. In Campbell, this Court concluded because the probation officer did 

not have reasonable cause to support a warrantless search of a probationer’s home, the 

trial court erred in overruling Campbell’s motion to suppress. However, the Ohio Supreme 

Court, while agreeing the search violated R.C. 2951.02, reversed this Court, concluding 

the exclusionary rule does not apply to a violation of R.C. 2951.02:

Similarly, this court has long held that the exclusionary rule applies 

“to violations of a constitutional nature only.” Kettering v. Hollen, 64 Ohio 

St.2d 232, 234, 416 N.E.2d 598 (1980). Accord State v. Emerson, 134 Ohio 

St.3d 191, 2012-Ohio-5047, 981 N.E.2d 787, ¶ 32; State v. Jones, 121 Ohio 

St.3d 103, 2009-Ohio-316, 902 N.E.2d 464, ¶ 21; State v. Myers, 26 Ohio 

St.2d 190, 196-197, 271 N.E.2d 245 (1971). Thus, we will not apply the 

exclusionary rule “to statutory violations falling short of constitutional 

violations, absent a legislative mandate requiring the application of the 

exclusionary rule.” Kettering at 234, 416 N.E.2d 598; see also State v. 

French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446, 449, 650 N.E.2d 887 (1995). A plain reading of 

R.C. 2951.02(A) reveals no such legislative mandate to impose an 

exclusionary remedy for a violation of the statute's reasonable-grounds 

requirement. Compare R.C. 2933.63(A) (authorizing, among other things, 

the suppression of evidence derived from an unlawful wiretap). Absent such 

a legislative mandate, this court is without authority to write an exclusionary 

remedy into the statute.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 7

Because there is no basis in either the statute or the United States 

Constitution to apply the exclusionary rule to violations of R.C. 2951.02(A), 

the court of appeals erred by concluding that Campbell's motion to suppress 

should have been granted and reversing the contrary decision of the trial 

court. Our conclusion that the exclusionary rule does not apply makes it 

unnecessary to address whether the probation officer's search would have 

fallen under the good-faith exception to that rule.

{¶11} State v. Campbell, 2022-Ohio-3626, ¶¶22-23.

{¶12} Therefore, based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent holding, even if we 

agreed with Appellant Richter lacked reasonable cause for the search of the cell phone, 

the exclusionary rule would not apply to the statutory violation, and suppression of the 

evidence taken from Appellant’s cell phone would not be required.

{¶13} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Licking County 

Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

Wise, John, J. concur