Court Opinion

ID: 9801580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:51:10.118155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:52.291806
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting.
*459Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
R. William Meeks Co., L.P.A., and David H. Thomas, for appellee.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
Hunter, Carnahan, Shoub, Byard & Harshman, Russell E. Carnahan, and Robert M. Cody, urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae Fraternal Order of Police, Capital City Lodge No. 9.
Jeanine Hummer, Upper Arlington City Attorney, and Tom Lindsey, Assistant City Attorney, urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae city of Upper Arlington.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Stephen Goldmeier and Sarah G. LoPresti, Assistant Public Defenders, urging affirmance on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Public Defender.
{¶ 27} I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals but would not adopt its reasoning.
{¶ 28} Whether Detective Wuertz knowingly made false statements in his affidavit is ultimately irrelevant. That is because any information about Dibble’s relationship with E.K., a consenting adult, describes no crime, and thus provides no basis for a search. There is no allegation in the affidavit that any illegal activity regarding Victim # 1, E.S., took place in defendant’s home. Detective Wuertz was asked at the suppression hearing about the importance of information about E.K. to the probable-cause determination:
{¶ 29} “Q. * * * And only the information from [E.K.] would be the probable cause basis to be able to search the home of Mr. Dibble, correct? At that point in time, detective, that’s correct, is it not?
{¶ 30} “A. At that point in time.”
{¶ 31} The “detective, the trial court, and the court of appeals agreed that without the information regarding E.K., there was no probable cause to search Dibble’s residence. Since there was no basis for including information about E.K. in the supporting affidavit, we need not expend further judicial resources to determine that there was no basis for the search in this case.