Court Opinion

ID: 9890499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 13:09:16.613477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:19.884454
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Lackey, 2023-Ohio-3720.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                   FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                             HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                                       :   APPEAL NO. C-230025
                                                          TRIAL NO. B-2106423
      Plaintiff-Appellee,                             :
                                                             O P I N I O N.
   vs.                                                :

 NORMAN LACKEY,                                       :

      Defendant-Appellant.                            :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 13, 2023

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Jackson Law Office, LLC, and Kory A. Jackson, for Defendant-Appellant.
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

KINSLEY, Judge.

       {¶1}       Defendant-appellant Norman Lackey appeals his convictions for

various drug and weapons offenses. Because the search warrant for his residence was

supported by probable cause and the information in the affidavit submitted to obtain

the search warrant was not stale, we affirm Lackey’s convictions.

                         Factual and Procedural Background

       {¶2}   Based on an anonymous complaint of heavy traffic and weapons at

Lackey’s residence, officers began surveillance of Lackey’s residence. During the

course of their surveillance, officers observed the odor of marijuana emanating from

Lackey’s residence. They also observed Lackey conducting a “dead drop,” which

entailed Lackey placing a clear plastic baggie containing an unknown substance in the

bed of a truck.

       {¶3}   Then, over the course of a month, the officers conducted three trash

pulls from Lackey’s residence. (A trash pull involves searching items placed in a

garbage bin at the curb for pickup.) The first two trash pulls took place on December

1 and 8, 2021. Among other things the officers recovered during the first two trash

pulls were torn off baggies, vacuum sealed bags with the odor of marijuana, shipping

labels, and small glass containers with hash residue. Officers also conducted a third

trash pull a few days later from which they recovered a vacuum sealed bag roll, three

empty THC containers with marijuana residue inside, two empty packs of rolling

papers, and two empty packs of THC gummies.

       {¶4}   Based on these three trash pulls and the preceding investigation of

Lackey’s residence, the officers then submitted an affidavit for a search warrant to

search Lackey’s house. The affidavit was submitted on December 16, 2021, less than

                                             2
                       OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

48 hours after the third trash pull. Based on the information contained in the affidavit,

the trial court granted the application and issued the warrant.

       {¶5}    After the officers executed the search warrant, Lackey was indicted for

trafficking in and possessing marijuana, trafficking in and possessing hashish, and

having a weapon under a disability. Lackey moved to suppress the evidence seized

from the search of his residence, arguing that the search was based on an affidavit that

lacked probable cause and that the affidavit was based on stale information.

       {¶6}    After hearing arguments on Lackey’s motion to suppress, the trial court

denied the motion, finding that the facts set forth in the affidavit accompanying the

search warrant supported a finding of probable cause. Subsequently, Lackey withdrew

his not guilty pleas and entered no-contest pleas as charged. The trial court placed

Lackey on community control after holding a sentencing hearing.

       {¶7}    Lackey now appeals.

                                  Standard of Review

       {¶8}    This court reviews a trial court’s decision as to a motion to suppress de

novo. State v. Thyot, 2018-Ohio-644, 105 N.E.3d 1260, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.). “We must

accept the trial court’s findings of fact as true if competent, credible evidence supports

them. But we must independently determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable

legal standard.” Id.

                                    Probable Cause

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

in denying his motion to suppress. And in the first issue for review under this

assignment of error, Lackey asserts that the affidavit in support of the search warrant

lacked probable cause.

                                                3
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶10} In State v. German, we explained an appellate court’s consideration in

reviewing a trial court’s decision as to a motion to suppress:

       In determining whether a search warrant was adequately supported by

       probable cause, the reviewing court’s duty is merely to ensure that the

       issuing magistrate or judge had a substantial basis for concluding that

       probable cause existed. Neither a trial court nor an appellate court

       should substitute its judgment for the magistrate’s by conducting a de

       novo review of whether the affidavit contained probable cause. This

       standard of review grants a great deal of deference to the issuing

       magistrate.

       To establish probable cause to issue a search warrant, an affidavit must

       contain information to allow a magistrate to draw the conclusion that

       evidence is likely to be found at the place to be searched. And probable

       cause exists when a reasonably prudent person would believe that there

       is a fair probability that the place to be searched contains evidence of a

       crime.

(Footnotes omitted.) State v. German, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-040263, 2005-Ohio-

527, ¶ 12-13.

       {¶11} Here, the affidavit established that contraband or evidence of a crime

would likely be found at Lackey’s residence. According to the affidavit, officers

observed Lackey conducting a “dead drop” and the odor of marijuana emanating from

his residence. Further, the affidavit detailed what the officers recovered from three

trash pulls of Lackey’s residence, including materials commonly used by marijuana

traffickers. Though Lackey contends that most of the items recovered were just

                                               4
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

evidence of personal drug use, the affidavit contained information connecting the

items to marijuana trafficking.

       {¶12} Therefore, considering the facts set forth in the affidavit as a whole, as

we are bound to do at this stage of the proceedings, we hold that there was a fair

probability that contraband or evidence of marijuana trafficking would be found at

Lackey’s residence. See German at ¶ 13. Accordingly, we uphold the trial court’s

finding of probable cause based on the affidavit.

                                      Staleness

       {¶13} In his second issue for review, Lackey argues that the information in the

search warrant was stale and therefore did not give rise to probable cause.

       {¶14} Though the state argued Lackey waived his staleness argument by not

asserting it in his motion to suppress, Lackey argued staleness at the suppression

hearing. We therefore do not consider the argument waived.

       {¶15} But we do not find any merit in this argument. We described when

information in an affidavit has gone stale in German:

       Because probable cause to search is concerned with facts relating to a

       presently existing condition, a magistrate or judge must consider

       whether the information supporting the issuance of a warrant has gone

       stale. Therefore, the law of search and seizure requires that an affidavit

       for a search warrant present timely information.

       No arbitrary time limit dictates when information becomes stale. The

       test is whether the facts justify the conclusion that certain contraband

       remains on the premises to be searched.

                                               5
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

(Footnotes omitted.) German, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-040263, 2005-Ohio-527, at

¶ 14-15. For example, “[t]he observation of a half-smoked marijuana cigarette in an

ashtray at a cocktail party may well be stale the day after the cleaning lady has been

in,” but “the observation of the burial of a corpse in a cellar may not be stale three

decades later.” Id. at ¶ 17.

       {¶16} The first, second, and third trash pulls occurred 15 days, eight days, and

48 hours before the officers applied for a warrant, respectively. Lackey argues the

information contained in the affidavit occurred nearly a week before the warrant was

served and was therefore stale. But as the state noted during the suppression hearing,

trash is typically only picked up once a week, and it would have been impossible to pull

trash more than once a week.        Moreover, the fact that officers found evidence

connected with drug activity on three separate instances over a 15-day period

preceding the search heightened, not diminished, the likelihood that contraband

remained on the premises. The regularity with which the items continued to be found

in Lackey’s trash undercut any concern that the passage of time might have rendered

the information in the affidavit stale.

       {¶17} Lackey also contends that a four-day delay in executing the search

warrant contributed to its potential staleness. But again, the fact that Lackey’s trash

contained evidence connected to drug activity on three separate occasions spaced 13

days apart did not make it likely that those four days would change the calculus. We

therefore hold that the affidavit was not based on stale information.

       {¶18} Accordingly, we overrule Lackey’s assignment of error and affirm his

convictions.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

                                               6
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BERGERON, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.

Please note:
       The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                                 7