State v. Jenkins

2025 Ohio 4447

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2025-Ohio-4447.]

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

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240565 TRIAL NO. B-2402300 Plaintiff-Appellant, :

vs. :

DESHAWN JENKINS, : JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellee. :

This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, the briefs, and arguments. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.

To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 9/24/2025 per order of the court.

By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2025-Ohio-4447.]

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

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240565 TRIAL NO. B-2402300 Plaintiff-Appellant, :

vs. : OPINION DESHAWN JENKINS, :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 24, 2025

Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellant,

Derek W. Gustafson, for Defendant-Appellee. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

MOORE, Judge.

{¶1} Appellant State of Ohio appeals the trial court’s judgment granting

defendant-appellee Deshawn Jenkins’ motion to suppress evidence of a gun, cocaine,

fluorofentanyl, flouroacetyl fentanyl, and heroin that was found in a bag that Jenkins

was carrying when he met with his parole officer, Officer Samuel Gropp, on May 15,

2024.

I. Factual and Procedural History

Jenkins’ Girlfriend Contacts Gropp

{¶2} After serving time for a 1994 aggravated-robbery conviction, Jenkins

was released from prison in January 2023 and placed on postrelease-control (“PRC”)

supervision. Jenkins registered his girlfriend’s address as his residence.

{¶3} Jenkins’ girlfriend contacted Gropp “sometime around December of

[20]23” and informed him that Jenkins had slashed her tires. Under the terms of his

PRC, Jenkins was prohibited from having any knives. So, having a knife and using it

to slash the girlfriend’s tires would have been, among other things, a violation of the

terms of his PRC. In addition, the girlfriend explained that Jenkins “hangs out

downtown with a beige bag” and carries a “black gun” in it. Jenkins was also prohibited

from having a gun under the terms of his PRC.

{¶4} Following the girlfriend’s tip, Gropp issued a warrant for Jenkins’

arrest. Gropp was present when federal marshals picked Jenkins up on the warrant at

the girlfriend’s house on December 22, 2023. Gropp did not see Jenkins with a bag

when he was arrested, and Jenkins’ girlfriend did not give officers permission to search

the home. Jenkins was held in jail pending the hearing on the slashed-tires allegation.

Jenkins is released from jail on high supervision.

{¶5} As the girlfriend failed to attend the hearing on her allegation that

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Jenkins slashed her tires, Jenkins was released from jail on high supervision on

January 11, 2024, which required him to report to Gropp once a month for randomly

scheduled meetings.

{¶6} Gropp scheduled a meeting with Jenkins downtown at the Hamilton

County Department of Job and Family Services building on May 15, 2024. Gropp

testified that, when Jenkins arrived, the first thing he saw was a “beige bag.” Gropp

searched the bag and found a black gun inside. Gropp secured Jenkins in a car until

police arrived.

Jenkins is indicted.

{¶7} On May 23, 2024, Jenkins was indicted for one count of carrying

concealed weapons, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), one

count of having weapons while under disability, a third-degree felony, in violation of

R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), two counts of possession of a fentanyl-related compound, fourth-

degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), one count of possession of heroin, a

felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), and one count of possession

of cocaine, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A).

Jenkins moves to suppress evidence from the search.

{¶8} Jenkins filed a motion to suppress, arguing Gropp lacked reasonable

suspicion to search him because the tip Gropp acted on was stale.

{¶9} At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Jenkins stipulated that he was

on PRC when Gropp searched him, the bag he was carrying contained a gun, and he

had admitted when he was arrested that he knew the gun was in the bag. Jenkins,

however, denied knowing that drugs were in the bag.

{¶10} Gropp testified that he never saw Jenkins with a bag matching the

description from the tip between the time when Jenkins was released from jail on high

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

supervision on January 11, 2023, and the time he saw Jenkins in May 2024. Gropp

also explained that he did not search Jenkins during this period. Gropp recalled that,

when he saw Jenkins carrying a bag on May 15, 2024, he informed his partner that

there were allegations that Jenkins might have something in the bag and he was going

to search it. Gropp testified that he told Jenkins that he was going to search the bag

out of concern for his personal safety, and Jenkins did not object to the search.

{¶11} On cross-examination, Gropp testified that the bag he saw Jenkins with

at the May 15 meeting was a Louis Vuitton bag that was dark brown with “other colors”

and “was more checkered,” but that the bag looked “beige” to him. Gropp

acknowledged that he searched the bag based on the tip the girlfriend gave five months

prior.

{¶12} Jenkins argued the search of his bag was unconstitutional because

Gropp had no reasonable grounds to believe he was not complying with the terms of

PRC. The State responded that the opportunity to search pursuant to the tip did not

present itself until May 15, 2024, when Gropp searched the bag Jenkins was carrying.

{¶13} The trial court took the matter under advisement. It noted on the record

that it would not treat the issue as a consensual search, as the State argued, thus the

issue of consent would not be addressed. The court stated that, instead, it would focus

on Jenkins’ claim that the reason for the search became stale with the passage of time

and intervening events.

{¶14} On October 2, 2024, the court issued an entry granting Jenkins’ motion

to suppress. This appeal followed.

II. Analysis

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

law and fact. State v. Burnside, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. At a suppression hearing, the

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to resolve

questions of fact and evaluate witness credibility. Id. A reviewing court must defer to

the trial court’s factual findings if competent, credible evidence exists to support the

trial court’s findings. State v. Calo-Jiminez, 2023-Ohio-2562, ¶ 27 (1st Dist.).

{¶16} We review a trial court’s legal conclusions on a motion to suppress de

novo. Id. Accepting the trial court’s factual findings as true and without deference to

the conclusion of the trial court, the appellate court must independently determine

whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. Id.

A. The trial court erred in granting Jenkins’ motion to suppress.

The trial court’s entry and its failure to state its findings of fact.

{¶17} The State asserts the trial court summarily granted Jenkins’ motion to

suppress without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law. Crim.R. 12(F) provides

that a trial court may adjudicate a motion based upon briefs, affidavits, the proffer of

testimony and exhibits, a hearing, or other appropriate means. Where factual issues

are involved in determining a motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the

record. Id.

{¶18} A trial court, however, is not required to make findings of fact under

Crim.R. 12(F) when the evidence is undisputed. State v. Adams, 2015-Ohio-3954, ¶

114. In the instant matter, neither party disputes the facts. See State v. Williams, 2003-

Ohio-2647, ¶ 7, fn. 2 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Benner, 40 Ohio St.3d 301, 317-318

(1988) (The trial court’s failure to issue findings as required to by Crim.R. 12(F) is not

prejudicial error where findings are not requested by a party and the record provides

a reviewing court with a sufficient basis to review the assignments of error.). Here,

because the evidence is undisputed, the question as to whether the tip Gropp acted on

was stale, is a question of law. Accordingly, the State’s assignment of error may be

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

reviewed in the absence of the trial court’s explicit factual findings.

Crim.R. (12)F required the State to request findings of fact in the absence of such findings.

{¶19} The State should have moved the court to state its essential findings of

fact in support of its judgment if such findings were unclear to it. CrimR. 12(F); see

Adams at ¶ 112 (Crim.R. 12(F) is not self-executing; if findings of fact are not

requested, any error is forfeited.); Bryan v. Knapp, 21 Ohio St.3d 64, 65 (1986) (The

trial court must, upon request, state essential findings of fact so the reviewing court

can properly consider the propriety of the trial court’s ruling.).

{¶20} In the instant matter, the State did not move the trial court to state its

essential findings in support of granting Jenkins’ motion. The State’s challenge to the

trial court’s failure to include findings in its entry is, therefore, forfeited.

The Constitutional Protections Against Unreasonable Searches

{¶21} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,

Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches

and seizures by the government where an individual has a reasonable expectation of

privacy. See State v. Evenson, 2022-Ohio-1336, ¶ 31 (1st Dist.); Smith v. Maryland,

442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979). An expectation of privacy exists where an individual has

manifested a subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that society

recognizes as reasonable. State v. Barnes, 2017-Ohio-7284, ¶ 9 (3d Dist.); Smith at

740. While the Fourth Amendment does not specifically provide that unlawful

searches and seizures will result in the suppression of evidence, the United States

Supreme Court has held that the exclusion of evidence is an essential part of the Fourth

Amendment. Barnes at ¶ 9; see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 649 (1961).

Reasonable grounds for warrantless search of a person on PRC.

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶22} Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless an exception

applies. State v. McConico, 2024-Ohio-5657, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.). The State bears the

burden of persuasion to show the validity of a warrantless search. Id.; Chimel v.

California, 395 U.S. 752, 762 (1969).

{¶23} A warrantless search of a person being supervised under PRC is

reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if it satisfies either of “two distinct doctrinal

frameworks.” United States v. Sharp, 40 F.4th 749, 752-753 (6th Cir. 2022), quoting

United States v. Herndon, 501 F.3d 683, 687-688 (6th Cir. 2007). The first of such

frameworks is the “special needs” test set out in Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868,

880 (1987). Under the test established in Griffin, a search of a person under PRC

supervision is reasonable if it is conducted in accordance with a constitutional state

law authorizing warrantless searches. Sharp at 752-753. R.C. 2967.131(C), which

governs the conditions of PRC and permits the search of such persons with or without

a warrant, satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Id.; see

United States v. Loney, 331 F.3d 516, 521 (6th Cir. 2003) (R.C. 2967.131(C)(1), which

authorizes warrantless searches of persons under PRC supervision, has passed

“constitutional muster.”).

{¶24} Second, under R.C. 2967.131(C)(1)(a), parole officers have authority to

conduct warrantless searches of a person, residence, vehicle, or other property of

offenders released on PRC supervision if the officer has “reasonable grounds to

believe” the offender “is not complying with the terms and conditions” of his PRC. See

State v. Benton, 82 Ohio St.3d 316, 319 (1998).

{¶25} Reasonableness is measured by the totality of the circumstances by

considering (1) the position of the offender who is under PRC supervision on the

“continuum” of criminal punishments as they do not enjoy the same level of liberty as

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the average citizen, (2) the terms of the search condition communicated to the person,

and (3) the State’s overwhelming interest in supervising the person. Sharp at 753,

citing Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850-853 (2006); see State v. Currie, 2025-

Ohio-670, ¶ 26 (1st Dist.). Whether a search is reasonable depends on the facts and

circumstances of each case. State v. Leak, 2016-Ohio-154, ¶ 14.

{¶26} The reasonable-grounds standard does not mandate the level of

certainty required to establish probable cause. Currie at ¶ 26, quoting State v.

Helmbright, 2013-Ohio-1143, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.). Reasonable grounds exist if the

information known to the officer establishes a reasonable likelihood that a search will

yield evidence of a violation. Id. at ¶ 26. It requires more than a mere inchoate and

unparticularized suspicion or hunch and hinges on the content of information

possessed by an officer and its degree of reliability. Id. at ¶ 26, 28, citing Navarette v.

California, 572 U.S. 393, 397 (2014), quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330

(1990).

{¶27} A reliable tip, standing alone, may provide reasonable grounds to justify

a search. City of Parma v. Coyne, 2024-Ohio-3192, ¶ 20-21 (8th Dist.); see Maumee

v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295, 299 (1999) (a telephone tip can create reasonable

suspicion justifying an investigative stop if the tip has sufficient indicia of reliability

based on the weight and reliability of that tip). Where an informant’s tip is relied upon,

the informant’s veracity, reliability, and basis for knowledge must be assessed under

the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the tip establishes reasonable

suspicion. State v. Hamilton, 2017-Ohio-8140, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), citing Illinois v. Gates,

462 U.S. 213, 230 (1983).

{¶28} When judging the reliability of an informant’s tip, courts often

distinguish between three categories of informants: (1) an anonymous informant, (2)

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

a known informant (someone from the criminal world who has provided previous

reliable tips), and (3) an identified citizen informant. In re J.T., 2023-Ohio-2695, ¶ 21

(1st Dist.). Although an identified citizen informant may be considerably more reliable

than an anonymous informant, the categorization of the informant does not determine

the outcome of the case; rather, it is just one element in the totality of the

circumstances. Id. The Ohio Supreme Court has said that an identified citizen

informant may be highly reliable; therefore, rigorous scrutiny of the basis of his or her

knowledge is unnecessary. Hamilton at ¶ 14.

{¶29} The State asserts that Gropp had reasonable grounds to search Jenkins’

bag based on the girlfriend’s phone call.1 It cites to Griffin, 483 U.S. at 880, in support

of its argument that the tip was reliable. In discussing Wisconsin’s parole rules as they

relate to searches, Griffin states:

The rule provides that an officer should consider a variety of factors in

determining whether “reasonable grounds” exist, among which are

information provided by an informant, the reliability and specificity of

that information, the reliability of the informant (including whether the

informant has any incentive to supply inaccurate information), the

officer’s own experience with the probationer, and the “need to verify

compliance with rules of supervision and state and federal law.”

Griffin at 871.

{¶30} The State argues the trial court evaluated the case for “probable cause”

instead of “reasonable grounds” to search. Jenkins, however, argued at the hearing

that Gropp did not have reasonable suspicion to search the bag. The State in turn

1 The State also relies on Gropp’s testimony that Jenkins’ mother might have also informed Gropp

that Jenkins was in the downtown area carrying a gun.

10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

argued that reasonable suspicion did exist. The trial court explained the issue was

“whether or not there was reasonable grounds to conduct the search.” Thus, contrary

to the State’s assertion, the record shows that the trial court neither undertook a

probable-cause analysis nor made its decision based on whether Gropp had probable

cause to search.

Reasonable grounds existed for Gropp to search Jenkins.

{¶31} Here, the trial court improperly concluded that reasonable grounds did

not exist. While it is possible that the girlfriend had an ulterior motive in giving Gropp

the tip while alleging Jenkins had slashed her tires—particularly when she failed to

appear at the hearing on her slashed-tires allegation—the tip was nonetheless reliable,

and it established a reasonable likelihood that Gropp would discover that Jenkins was

violating the terms of his PRC. Unlike in Currie, here, the tip was not anonymous.

Instead, the tip came from Jenkins’ live-in girlfriend at the time. And the tip was

specific as to both the color of the bag and the gun. Therefore, under the totality of the

circumstances, the tip established reasonable grounds for Gropp to search the bag.

{¶32} Further, Jenkins was on PRC on a gun-related conviction, and had a

history of drug convictions, when he picked up the gun and drug charges at issue in

this case. Under the totality of the circumstances, the tip had sufficient indicia of

reliability to provide reasonable suspicion for Gropp to search the bag,

notwithstanding, as discussed below, the passage of five months.

The tip was not stale.

{¶33} As an aside, the State asserts that staleness usually only applies where

probable cause is the standard. The State, however, failed to develop this argument

and did not cite any authority to support its position. We therefore do not address the

State’s argument in that regard.

11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶34} No arbitrary time limit dictates when information becomes stale. State

v. Griffin, 2024-Ohio-1699, ¶ 23 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Martin, 2021-Ohio-2599, ¶

14 (1st Dist.). The test is whether the alleged facts justify the conclusion that evidence

remains to be found on or in the location to be searched. Id. Evidence generally

becomes stale when enough time has passed such that there is no longer a sufficient

basis to believe that the items to be seized are still on or in the area to be searched. Id.;

see State v. Rieves, 2018-Ohio-955, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.). The staleness of evidence depends

on the circumstances of each case. Id.

{¶35} In many cases, the passage of time and other factors would support at

least a suspicion that the tip could have been stale. Here, Gropp testified that Jenkins’

possession of a gun violates the terms of his PRC, and Gropp had at least five occasions

over five months to search Jenkins based on the allegation that he was carrying a gun.

{¶36} Gropp, however, testified that Jenkins did not carry a bag in their

previous meetings, and it was not until Gropp met Jenkins downtown on May 15,

2024, that he saw Jenkins carrying a bag like the one described in the tip. Thus, even

after five months, there remained a reasonable likelihood that Gropp would find a gun

in the bag Jenkins brought to the meeting because the tip was made by a reliable

informant and the bag Jenkins had with him met the description given in the tip. See

United States v. Lancaster, 145 Fed.Appx. 508, 512-513 (6th Cir. 2005) (Information

contained in an affidavit was not stale two years after appellant was seen firing a

machine gun “given that firearms are not perishable items.”); United States v.

Vanderweele, 545 Fed.Appx. 465, 469-470 (Where appellant argued that informant’s

statement that appellant possessed a silencer went stale by the time the search

occurred seven months later, the Sixth Circuit held that a silencer is like a gun which

is easily transferrable and commonly kept by its owner for a long time, and a gun is an

12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

“apt simile” for a silencer.).

{¶37} Based on our independent review of the record, we hold it was not

unreasonable for Gropp to believe a gun would be found in the bag Jenkins brought to

the meeting and which Gropp saw for the first time after receiving the tip.

{¶38} Accordingly, we sustain the State’s assignment of error.

III. Conclusion

{¶39} Because the trial court erred in granting Jenkins’ motion to suppress,

we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

CROUSE, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.