[Cite as State v. Middleton, 2024-Ohio-5172.]
COURT OF APPEALS COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES: : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. : -vs- : Sitting by Assignment by the : Supreme Court of Ohio : RONALD F. MIDDLETON, JR. : Case No. 2024-CO-0009 : Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2022-CR-00610
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 28, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
SHELLEY M. PRATT RONALD D. YARWOOD 135 South Market Street 42 North Phelps Street Lisbon, OH 44432 Youngstown, OH 44503 Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 2
King, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Ronald F. Middleton, appeals the June 1, 2023
judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Columbiana, Ohio, denying his motions
to suppress. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} In the summer of 2021, the Columbiana County Drug Task Force
(hereinafter "CCDTF") began investigating Middleton after receiving a tip from a postal
worker of Middleton sending large sums of cash to Redding, California and in turn
receiving large packages with a marijuana odor from Redding, California. A package
addressed to Middleton was intercepted by the Drug Enforcement Agency (hereinafter
"DEA") and a federal search warrant was issued to open the package; over five pounds
of marijuana was discovered inside.
{¶ 3} On August 24, 2021, Detective Jordan Reynolds with the CCDTF obtained
a search warrant to search Middleton's residence for drugs and evidence of drug
trafficking. As a result of the search, on October 12, 2022, the Columbiana Grand Jury
indicted Middleton for possession of marijuana in violation of R.C. 2925.11 with a
forfeiture specification.
{¶ 4} On March 30, 2023, Middleton filed a motion to suppress evidence under
seal due to containing sensitive information. Middleton argued the firsthand knowledge
asserted by Detective Reynolds in his affidavit to secure the search warrant regarding
Middleton's criminal history was false or made with reckless disregard for its accuracy;
therefore, those statements could not be considered in the determination of probable
cause to issue the warrant. Middleton also argued there was a lack of probable cause to
issue the warrant. A hearing was held on May 1, 2023. By judgment entry filed June 1, Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 3
2023, the trial court denied the motion, finding the affidavit was proper and probable cause
was sufficient to issue the search warrant.
{¶ 5} On July 24, 2023, Middleton filed a supplemental motion to suppress,
arguing the search warrant was a "blanket warrant" and overbroad in that it listed "any
and all controlled substances or suspected controlled substances, including heroin and
fentanyl," but failed to mention marijuana which was the basis of the investigation.
{¶ 6} On November 15, 2023, a superseding indictment was filed charging
Middleton with one count of possessing marijuana and one count of possessing
methamphetamine, both in violation of R.C. 2925.11, with two forfeiture specifications.
{¶ 7} By judgment entry filed February 8, 2024, the trial court denied Middleton's
supplemental motion to suppress, finding the search warrant language was not
overbroad.
{¶ 8} On February 20, 2024, Middleton pled no contest to the amended charge
of illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14. By
judgment entry filed February 28, 2024, the trial court found Middleton guilty and imposed
a $100 fine.
{¶ 9} Middleton filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:
I
{¶ 10} "THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT HE SUFFERED A DENIAL OF HIS
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
HIS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 14, ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION WHEN
THE COURT FAILED TO GRANT HIS MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND THE
SUPPLEMENT TO THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE." Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 4
{¶ 11} In his sole assignment of error, Middleton claims the trial court erred in
denying his motions to suppress evidence. Specifically, Middleton claims the affidavit
was insufficient, there was a lack of probable cause, and the search warrant was
overbroad. We disagree with his arguments.
{¶ 12} As stated by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Leak, 2016-Ohio-154, ¶
12:
"Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question
of law and fact." State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372,
797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. In ruling on a motion to suppress, "the trial court
assumes the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to
resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of witnesses." Id.,
citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992). On
appeal, we "must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported
by competent, credible evidence." Id., citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d
19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Accepting those facts as true, we must then
"independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the
conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal
standard." Id.
{¶ 13} That is, the application of the law to the trial court's findings of fact is subject
to a de novo standard of review. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996). Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 5
Moreover, due weight should be given "to inferences drawn from those facts by resident
judges and local law enforcement officers." Id. at 698.
{¶ 14} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14,
Article I, Ohio Constitution, prohibit the government from conducting unreasonable
searches and seizures of persons or their property. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968);
State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991). In determining the sufficiency of probable
cause in an affidavit submitted for a search warrant, a trial judge or magistrate "is simply
to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set
forth in the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons
supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983);
Accord State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325 (1980). As a reviewing court, our duty is to
ensure that the issuing tribunal had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause
existed. George at paragraph two of the syllabus. We must accord great deference to
that decision. Illinois at 236. The totality of the circumstances must be examined in
determining whether probable cause existed for a search warrant. Id. at 238. "Probable
cause" means "'only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity.'"
Id. at 235, quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969).
{¶ 15} A search warrant and its supporting affidavits enjoy a presumption of
validity. State v. McDaniel, 2015-Ohio-1007, ¶ 27, citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S.
154 (1978). "When a motion to suppress attacks the validity of a search conducted
pursuant to a warrant, the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish that evidence
obtained pursuant to the warrant should be suppressed." Id., citing State v. Dennis, 79
Ohio St.3d 421, 426 (1997). Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 6
{¶ 16} Middleton challenges the residence search warrant. He argues the affidavit
to obtain the warrant was insufficient, there was a lack of probable cause to issue the
warrant, and the warrant was overbroad.
AFFIDAVIT
{¶ 17} In order for a challenger to attack an affidavit to a search warrant:
There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard
for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of
proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit
that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement
of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements
of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained.
Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient.
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978); Accord State v. Roberts, 62 Ohio St.2d
170 (1980).
{¶ 18} The allegation of perjury or reckless disregard must be "established by the
defendant by a preponderance of the evidence." Franks at 156. The Franks Court further
stated at 164-165:
Judge Frankel, in United States v. Halsey, 257 F.Supp. 1002, 1005
(S.D.N.Y.1966), aff'd, Docket No. 31369 (CA2, June 12, 1967) (unreported),
put the matter simply: "[W]hen the Fourth Amendment demands a factual Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 7
showing sufficient to comprise 'probable cause,' the obvious assumption is
that there will be a truthful showing" (emphasis in original). This does not
mean "truthful" in the sense that every fact recited in the warrant affidavit is
necessarily correct, for probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and
upon information received from informants, as well as upon information
within the affiant's own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily.
But surely it is to be "truthful" in the sense that the information put forth is
believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.
{¶ 19} In the affidavit, Detective Reynolds averred: "Affiant knows that Middleton
Jr. has a violent and drug-related criminal history, including . . . . Affidavit, attached to
April 5, 2023 State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence as State's
Exhibit 1 at ¶ 10, filed under seal. Middleton argues "[a]ffiant knows" of his criminal history
is a false statement because Detective Reynolds merely ran a criminal history check and
listed offenses "without knowing first-hand what happened or the final disposition."
Appellant's Brief at 7. Middleton argues the affidavit gives the impression Detective
Reynolds had firsthand knowledge of his criminal history which "was made with reckless
disregard of its accuracy." Id. Middleton argues "even if this was not a reckless
misrepresentation of the facts, it was an improper inference by the officer that a CCH
printout was the equivalent of having firsthand knowledge of an individual's violent
criminal history with firearms and assaults." Id. at 8.
{¶ 20} Detective Reynolds testified he "listed the criminal history as it was listed on
the printout provided by dispatch." May 1, 2023 T. at 13. Criminal histories "are handled
by BCI, which is a portion of LEADS. The LEADS portion is handled by the Highway Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 8
Patrol. It gives us a detailed list of things that the - - that a subject - - a person subject to
investigation could have been charged with in the past." Id. at 13-14. The state produced
Middleton's computerized criminal history which Detective Reynolds agreed was a "fair
and accurate depiction of the criminal history" he reviewed when he requested the search
warrant. Id. at 14; State's Exhibit 2. Detective Reynolds listed Middleton's criminal history
he submitted in the affidavit and testified those are the same charges contained in
Middleton's criminal history. Id. at 15. Detective Reynolds never stated Middleton was
convicted of the crimes, just "that I know he has a criminal history pertaining to the
charges leveled against him." Id. at 16, 28. On cross-examination, Detective Reynolds
explained he was "just relaying the information from the criminal history to the affidavit."
Id. at 23. His "knowledge" comes from reading the criminal history. Id.
{¶ 21} In denying Middleton's motion to suppress, the trial court found he did not
meet his burden under Franks. See June 1, 2023 Judgment Entry at 3. The trial court
found Middleton "has not made a substantial preliminary showing that Detective Reynolds
made a false statement in his affidavit or any statement that was in reckless disregard of
the truth." Id. The trial court reviewed the printout of Middleton's criminal history and
found Detective Reynolds "correctly and truthfully recites this past criminal history. He
does not embellish it in an effort to mislead or deceive." Id. The trial court found there
was "no showing that his use of the word 'knows' in connection with a recitation of the
Defendant's past criminal record was critical to the finding of probable cause." Id.
{¶ 22} In reviewing the affidavit and Detective Reynolds's testimony, we concur
with the trial court's analysis. Middleton has not presented any evidence that the affidavit
contains any false or purposeful misrepresentation of information. Affiant stated he
"knows" because he obtained the information from a printout of Middleton's criminal Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 9
history maintained by at least two governmental agencies. Affidavits must be tested and
interpreted by tribunals "in a commonsense and realistic fashion." United States v.
Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 (1965). "They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the
midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate
specificity once exacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area."
Id.
{¶ 23} Middleton did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Detective
Reynolds submitted statements that were deliberate falsehoods or a reckless disregard
for the truth.
PROBABLE CAUSE
{¶ 24} "Probable cause is defined as reasonable grounds for belief, supported by
less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion." United States v. Bennett, 905
F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1990), citing United States v. One 1984 Cadillac, 888 F.2d 1133,
1135 (6th Cir. 1989). "[P]robable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon
information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant's own
knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily." Franks, 438 U.S. at 165.
{¶ 25} Middleton argues the search warrant lacked probable cause because it was
based solely on the anonymous tip from a postal worker, an opened package containing
marijuana addressed to Middleton's address, but never delivered, and a dead marijuana
grow observed at the address in 2012.
{¶ 26} A review of the affidavit establishes in 2012, when responding to a trespass
complaint at the subject residence, Detective Reynolds personally observed a grow room
in the basement with dead marijuana plants and devices used to grow marijuana. In
2021, an anonymous postal worker reported Middleton sending large sums of cash to Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 10
Redding, California and in turn receiving large packages with a marijuana odor from
Redding, California on numerous occasions. Middleton was the target of an investigation
by the CCDTF and the DEA. A package addressed to Middleton was intercepted and a
federal search warrant was issued to open the package; over five pounds of marijuana
was discovered inside.
{¶ 27} Based upon the totality of the circumstances as set forth in the affidavit, we
find the trial court had a substantial basis for concluding there was a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime would be found at Middleton's residence; therefore,
probable cause existed to issue the search warrant.
OVERBROAD
{¶ 28} Middleton argues the search warrant at issue lacks the particularity required
by the Fourth Amendment as set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v.
Castagnola, 2015-Ohio-1565. The particularity requirement "guards against general
searches that leave to the unguided discretion of the officers executing the warrant the
decision as to what items may be seized." United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 844 (2d
Cir. 1990). Castagnola reviewed a search warrant seeking to search files on a computer.
The warrant sought "records and documents" stored on a number of digital devices. Id.
at ¶ 76. In finding the warrant invalid, the Court held the purpose of the particularity
requirement was to guide and control the judgment of the seizing officer and to avoid
overly broad seizures. Id. at ¶ 79. In its consideration of the warrant against the
Constitution's particularity requirement, the Court held the warrant did not guide or control
the analyst's discretion as to what was to be seized on the computer, allowing the analyst
to look at all the evidence on the hard drive to determine what to seize. Id. at ¶ 83. Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 11
{¶ 29} Next, the Court found the broad language of the warrant included items that
were not subject to seizure. Id. at ¶ 84. The state argued "'nothing in the record suggests
that the police knew ahead of time precisely where or on which devices those items were
stored.'" Id. at ¶ 85. The Court held the particularity issue did not relate "to where the
information was stored but rather 'what' evidence the detective had a fair probability of
believing existed" on the computer. Id. The Court determined the search warrant lacked
particularity and was therefore invalid. Id. at ¶ 90.
{¶ 30} Middleton argues the search warrant in his case was less particular than
the one in Castagnola. Appellant's Brief at 9. He points out the warrant's affidavit
mentions an investigation involving marijuana, but the warrant did not list marijuana. It
listed "[a]ny and all controlled substances and suspected controlled substances, including
Methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, any and all electronic devices, including cellular
phones, computers, PDA's, and any other evidence of drug abuse and/or drug trafficking."
Affidavit, attached to April 5, 2023 State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Suppress
Evidence as State's Exhibit 1, filed under seal. In support of his argument, Middleton
cites the cases of State v. Casey, 2004-Ohio-5789 (7th Dist.) and State v. Dalpiaz, 2002-
Ohio-7346 (11th Dist.).
{¶ 31} Casey was a state's appeal after the trial court granted the defendant's
motion to suppress. The police investigation involved crack cocaine, yet the warrant
permitted a search for "drugs of abuse as defined by O.R.C. 3719.011(A)" which includes
a broad and vague laundry list of items. Casey at ¶ 15. The court determined the state
"should have been more particular in describing the items to be seized in the affidavit and
search warrant." Id. The court stated search warrants should not permit fishing
expeditions for contraband nor should they "simply contain the same cookie-cutter Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 12
language used in every warrant." Id. But the court went on to conclude since the police
would have discovered the challenged evidence during their search for crack cocaine, the
trial court erred in suppressing the evidence. Id. at ¶ 30.
{¶ 32} In Dalpiaz, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress. The
police investigation involved marijuana, yet the warrant did not mention marijuana and
authorized police to seize "'[a]ny drug processing, making, manufacturing, producing,
transporting, delivering, processing, storing, distributing, selling, using, or other-wise
dealing with a controlled substance, and all other fruits and instrumentalities of the crime
at the present time unknown.'" Dalpiaz at ¶ 29. It further provided for the seizure of "'any
and all evidence pertaining to violations of the drug laws of the State of Ohio; Ohio
Revised Code, and all other fruits and instrumentalities of the crime at the present time
unknown.'" Id. In reversing the trial court, the court determined "the scope of the warrant
was so broad that it permitted police officers to seize any evidence relating to a violation
of the drug laws of Ohio. This court views this laundry list approach to search warrants
as an unacceptable impingement upon an individual's Fourth Amendment rights."
{¶ 33} In denying Middleton's supplemental motion to suppress, the trial court
distinguished the cases of Castagnola, Casey, and Dalpiaz. See Judgment Entry filed
February 8, 2024. The trial court found the search warrant in Castagnola was unlike the
Middleton search warrant. Id. at 4. The trial court found the Middleton search warrant
authorized the search and seizure of items related to the crimes being investigated i.e.,
possession of drugs and/or trafficking in drugs; the search warrant "was tailored and
particular." Id. at 5. Although the search warrant did not specifically list marijuana, the
trial court found it identified "the specific illegal activity to which the items to be seized
relate: '[t]he transportation, ordering, purchasing, and distribution of controlled Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 13
substances.'" Id. The trial court noted in 2021, marijuana was a controlled substance.
Id. The items to be seized "were directly linked to the alleged criminal activity under
investigation." Id. The trial court found unlike Casey, the Middleton warrant did not
"impermissibly authorize a generalized, exploratory search" as it "reasonably guided and
limited the discretion of the executing officers and provided sufficient specificity regarding
the items sought." Id. at 5-6. As for the Dalpiaz search warrant, the trial court found it
contained "an extensive and vague laundry list of items" which "had no identified nexus
to the alleged criminal drug activity under investigation," unlike the Middleton warrant. Id.
at 6.
{¶ 34} We concur with the trial court's analysis. Detective Reynolds's affidavit
contains numerous facts to support his belief that Middleton was engaging in drug-related
activity, including drug trafficking. As stated above, the affidavit stated an anonymous
postal worker reported Middleton sending large sums of cash to Redding, California and
in turn receiving large packages with a marijuana odor from Redding, California on
numerous occasions. Middleton was the target of an investigation by the CCDTF and the
DEA and a package addressed to Middleton was intercepted and opened and over five
pounds of marijuana was discovered inside. The search warrant authorized law
enforcement to search "[a]ny and all controlled substances and suspected controlled
substances, including Methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, any and all electronic devices,
including cellular phones, computers, PDA's, and any other evidence of drug abuse
and/or drug trafficking." Marijuana falls under "controlled substances." The items subject
to search and seizure related to the crimes being investigated i.e., possession of drugs
and/or trafficking in drugs; the items were sufficiently identified. Columbiana County, Case No. 2024-CO-0009 14
{¶ 35} We disagree with Middleton's argument that the search warrant was
overbroad and invalid due to lack of particularity.
{¶ 36} Upon review, we find the trial court did not err in denying Middleton's
motions to suppress.
{¶ 37} The sole assignment of error is denied.
{¶ 38} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Columbiana County, Ohio
is hereby affirmed.
By King, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
Sitting by Assignment by the Supreme Court of Ohio