Court Opinion

ID: 9403467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 13:08:30.086744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.307951
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-2025.]

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

 STATE OF OHIO,                                       :   APPEAL NO. C-220394
                                                          TRIAL NO. B-2104466
      Plaintiff-Appellee,                             :
                                                             O P I N I O N.
   vs.                                                :

 LARRY BORGER,                                        :

      Defendant-Appellant.                            :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: June 21, 2023

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Jeffery J. Cutcher, for Defendant-Appellant.
                         OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

KINSLEY, Judge.

       {¶1}   Defendant-Appellant, Larry Borger, appeals the denial of his motion to

suppress evidence, arguing that the trial court’s denial was in error because he did not

receive notification under R.C. 2951.02 prior to probation officers searching his home

during a visit. Because the notification requirement under R.C. 2951.02 does not

provide constitutional grounds under which Borger can appeal, we affirm the trial

court’s decision.

                    I.     Factual and Procedural Background

       {¶2}   Borger was on community control (“on probation”) in August 2021 for

misdemeanor drug offenses. As a condition of his community control, Borger was

prohibited from using controlled substances and consuming alcohol.

       {¶3}   Two probation officers arrived at Borger’s house to assess his

community control compliance and determine his treatment needs, if any. Borger

answered the door and immediately informed the probation officers he was “high as f-

--” before allowing them into his home.

       {¶4}   Upon entering, the officers explained to Borger they would need to “look

around.” Borger pointed the officers towards the bedroom, where they found a “crack

pipe” in plain view on a bedside table. Borger was then searched by one of the officers

as a safety precaution and to prevent him from swallowing potential evidence. The

officer found a plastic baggie in Borger’s pocket that Borger identified as a baggie of

methamphetamines.

       {¶5}   The officer promptly arrested Borger. He was subsequently charged

with aggravated possession of drugs.

                                               2
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶6}   Borger filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the home

visit, arguing that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 14 of the Ohio

Constitution because he did not receive proper notice under R.C. 2951.02(A)(3). The

trial court denied Borger’s motion. Borger pleaded no contest to and was convicted of

aggravated possession of drugs. This appeal timely followed.

                                   II.    Analysis

                             A.     Constitutional Violation

       {¶7}    In his first assignment of error, Borger argues the trial court wrongly

denied his motion to suppress because there was insufficient evidence to show that he

received the notice required under R.C. 2951.02(A)(3) informing him that he could be

searched, with or without a warrant, as a condition of his community control. Borger

argues this failure to notify him of possible searches pursuant to the statute makes the

warrantless search of his residence and person unconstitutional under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 14 of

the Ohio Constitution.

       {¶8}   The review of a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress presents a

mixed question of law and fact. State v. Showes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180552,

2020-Ohio-650, ¶ 9. This court must accept the trial court’s findings of fact as true if

competent, credible evidence supports them. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152,

2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8.        However, this court must independently

determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. Id. at ¶ 8; State v.

Sweeten, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150583, 2016-Ohio-5828, ¶ 8.

                                               3
                          OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

        {¶9}       Borger argues that the lack of proof that he signed the rules of probation

alerting him to the requirements of R.C. 2951.02(A)(3) before his home was searched

amounts to a constitutional violation. But in State v. Campbell, Slip Opinion No.

2022-Ohio-3626, ¶ 12, 21, 23, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that the failure

of probation officers to give notice under R.C. 2951.02(A)(3) does not violate the

Fourth Amendment, and further, that any violation of the statute cannot be remedied

through evidentiary exclusion. While a probation “officer violates R.C. 2951.02(A) if

the officer conducts a search without reasonable grounds to believe that the

probationer violated the law or conditions of probation,” a court cannot exclude

evidence resulting from this type of illegal search because the exclusionary rule applies

only to constitutional violations. Id. at 21, 23; State v. Clardy, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C-210262, 2022-Ohio-4300, ¶ 21.            Because Campbell prohibits this court from

providing an exclusionary remedy for officer violations under R.C. 2951.02, an

analysis of whether an officer violated the statute is irrelevant in cases requesting

exclusion of evidence. Clardy at ¶ 22. An independent constitutional claim must be

raised for this court to offer evidentiary exclusion as a remedy. Id. at ¶ 21; Campbell

at ¶ 12, 21, 23.

        {¶10} Borger only argues that his constitutional rights were violated through

the failure of officers to comply with the statutory requirements of R.C. 2951.02(A)(3).

He does not independently assert a constitutional violation. Because Borger does not

assert a constitutional claim and no exclusionary remedy is available under

R.C. 2951.02, we hold that no error occurred in the trial court’s denial of his motion to

suppress and overrule Borger’s first assignment of error.

                                                   4
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       B.     Consideration of the August 2021 Rules of Probation

       {¶11} Borger argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court

improperly considered the August 23, 2021 signed rules of probation submitted by the

prosecution after the hearing on the motion to suppress closed. Contrary to Borger’s

argument, the trial court seemingly found that Borger signed the rules of probation

prior to the search based on unrefuted officer testimony that Borger signed the

community control conditions prior to the date of the search, rather than relying upon

the actual signed document submitted after the hearing. However, even were we to

hold that the trial court improperly relied upon the signed rules submitted after the

close of evidence, we cannot grant the exclusionary remedy that Borger seeks because,

as explained above, Borger has not asserted a constitutional violation. See Campbell,

Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3626, at ¶ 23. Borger’s second assignment of error is

accordingly overruled.

                          C.      Inaccurate Findings of Fact

       {¶12} In his third and last assignment of error, Borger argues that the trial

court relied on findings of fact not supported by the record when it determined he was

detained prior to the search of his residence and person. Even if the trial court had

made inaccurate factual findings, those findings relate only to Borger’s sole argument

regarding compliance with R.C. 2951.02(A)(3), which is not a basis for excluding

evidence. See id. at ¶ 23. As a result, we are constrained to overrule Borger’s

assignment of error because he has not asserted a constitutional violation under which

exclusion can be granted as a remedy.

                                             5
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                                  III.    Conclusion

       {¶13} Because Borger does not raise a constitutional claim independent of the

alleged statutory violation of R.C. 2951.02(A)(3), this court cannot provide an

exclusionary remedy. The trial court’s judgment denying Borger’s motion to suppress

is accordingly affirmed.

                                                                      Judgment affirmed.

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.

                                                6