State v. Dye , 2014 Ohio 2547 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Dye, 2014-Ohio-2547.]
COURT OF APPEALS
HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 13CA010
BETHANY DYE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Holmes County Municipal
Court, Case No. CRB 13 055
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 11, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
STEVE KNOWLING JAMES L. BURDON
Prosecuting Attorney 137 South Main Street
Holmes County, Ohio Suite 201
164 E. Jackson Street Akron, Ohio 44308
Millersburg, Ohio 44654
Holmes County, Case No. 13CA010 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Bethany Dye appeals the March 19, 2013 Judgment
Entry entered by the Holmes County Municipal Court overruling her motion to suppress.
Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On January 28, 2013, the Holmes County Dog Warden, Katelyn Lehman,
received an email from the local Humane Society outlining concerns a "Mary Ann" had
about the condition of dogs and horses kept at Appellant's residence. The Dog Warden
contacted Mary Ann Tinlin, who told her the horses on Appellant's property were not
cared for and there was a strong odor of ammonia coming from Appellant's residence,
where dogs were kept. The Dog Warden had received complaints relating to
Appellant's residence in the past.
{¶3} Deputy Dog Warden Michael Phillips visited the property on three
separate occasions. He testified there was a strong odor of ammonia from thirty feet
away, associated with the buildup of feces and urine.
{¶4} Prior to preparing her affidavit for securing a search warrant, the Dog
Warden inquired as to the status of Appellant's kennel license. Appellant had not
obtained a current license at the time of the Warden's inquiry. Appellant applied for and
received 14 dog tags from the Holmes County Auditor on January 31, 2013.
{¶5} On February 1, 2013, the Dog Warden did an inspection of Appellant's
kennels in a garage and outbuilding of her property. The Warden detected a strong
smell of ammonia from a buildup of urine and fecal matter. She could see fecal matter
from outside the buildings.
Holmes County, Case No. 13CA010 3
{¶6} On February 1, 2013, the Holmes County Dog Warden obtained and
executed a search warrant at Appellant's residence and seized approximately seventy-
two dogs from thirty-two cages in Appellant's garage.
{¶7} The affidavit of Dog Warden Katelyn Lehman used to secure the search
warrant contains three numbered paragraphs,
{¶8} "1. The Holmes County Dog Warden's Department received a complaint
on 1-28-13 stating that dogs at the residence listed are not being properly cared for and
a strong odor is coming from the home.
{¶9} "2. Deputy Michael Phillips responded to the complaint on 1-28-2013, 1-
30-2013, and 1-31-2013. On all occasions there was no answer at the home. Lights
were on and cars were in the driveway. Deputy Phillips could hear multiple dogs
barking in the home and garage. There was an extremely overwhelming smell of
ammonia.
{¶10} "3. The Holmes County Auditor has no record of Bethany (Beth) Dye have
[sic] a dog or kennel license for the 2013 year."
{¶11} Appellant was charged with cruelty to animals, in violation of R.C.
959.13(A)(4) and a companion charge concerning prohibitions concerning companion
animals, a first degree misdemeanor. Appellant was also provided notice for seizure
and impoundment of companion animals, pursuant to R.C. 959.132(C).
{¶12} Appellant filed a motion to suppress on March 4, 2013.
{¶13} An initial hearing was held on the State's notice of seizure and
impoundment of companion animals on March 6, 2013. By agreement of the parties,
the testimony also covered the search warrant of Appellant's residence. Tr. p. 18.
Holmes County, Case No. 13CA010 4
{¶14} The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress
on March 18, 20131. Via Judgment Entry of March 19, 2013, the trial court overruled
Appellant's motion to suppress. The trial court held,
{¶15} "I based my review of the judge's decision to issue the warrant under
State v. George 45 Ohio St. 3, 325 (1989) and find that the facts presented to the
issuing judge, 'provided a substantial basis for the Court's conclusion that there was a
fair probability that evidence' of the crime cruelty to animals was located on the
premises. Discounting the entirety of the contested paragraph2 of the affidavit, the
balance of the facts set forth are sufficient to establish probable cause."
{¶16} Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the charge of cruelty to animals,
in violation of R.C. 959.13(A)(4), on August 28, 2013. The companion charge of
prohibitions concerning companion animals was dismissed. The trial court entered
sentence accordingly.
{¶17} Appellant appeals, assigning as error:
{¶18} "I. THE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS
VIOLATED BY THE COURT'S DECISION OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS."
I.
{¶19} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a
motion to suppress.
1
Appellant's counsel stipulated to the testimony presented at the prior hearing on March
6, 2013 relative to the search of Appellant's residence. Tr. at p. 2.
2
Appellant contested the first paragraph of the Dog Warden's affidavit.
Holmes County, Case No. 13CA010 5
{¶20} First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's findings of fact. In
reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether said
findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio
St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982); State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App. 3d 486, 597 N.E.2d 1141
(4th Dist.1991); State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio App. 3d 592, 621 N.E.2d 726 (4th
Dist.1993). Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the
appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can
reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App. 3d
37, 619 N.E.2d 1141 (4th Dist.1993). Finally, assuming the trial court's findings of fact
are not against the manifest weight of the evidence and it has properly identified the law
to be applied, an appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate
or final issue raised in the motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an
appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court's
conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case.
State v. Curry, 95 Ohio App. 3d 93, 641 N.E.2d 1172 (8th Dist.1994); State v. Claytor, 85
Ohio App. 3d 623, 620 N.E.2d 906 (4th Dist.1993); Guysinger. As the United States
Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1663, 134
L. Ed. 2d 911 (1996), “... as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and
probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal.”
{¶21} As set forth above, the trial court relied upon the Ohio Supreme Court
decision in State v. George, 45 Ohio St. 3d 325 (1989), which held,
{¶22} "The totality-of-the-circumstances test of Illinois v. Gates, supra, is
concisely set forth in that decision at 238–239, 103 S. Ct. at 2332:
Holmes County, Case No. 13CA010 6
{¶23} “' * * * The task of the issuing 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. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that
the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for * * * conclud[ing]’ that probable cause
existed. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. at 271[, 80 S. Ct. 725, 736, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697]. * *
*'
{¶24} "The Gates decision provides considerable elaboration as to the 'fair
probability' standard applicable to the magistrate's probable cause determination. We
find the following passage particularly instructive:
{¶25} "' * * * ‘[T]he term 'probable cause,' according to its usual acceptation,
means less than evidence which would justify condemnation * * *. It imports a seizure
made under circumstances which warrant suspicion’ [quoting from Locke v. United
States (1813), 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 339, 348, 3 L. Ed. 364]. More recently, we said that
‘the quanta * * * of proof’ appropriate in ordinary judicial proceedings are inapplicable to
the decision to issue a warrant. Brinegar, 338 U.S., at 173, 69 S.Ct. at 1309. Finely
tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the
evidence, useful in formal trials, have no place in the magistrate's decision. * * * [I]t is
clear that ‘only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the
standard of probable cause.’ Spinelli, 393 U.S., at 419[, 89 S.Ct. at 590–591]. See
Model Code of Pre–Arraignment Procedure § 210.1(7) (Prop. Off. Draft 1972); 1 W.
Holmes County, Case No. 13CA010 7
LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.2(e) (1978).” (Emphasis added.) Illinois v. Gates,
supra, at 235, 103 S. Ct. at 2330.
{¶26} "It is also important to note that the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis
of Gates not only addresses the original probable cause determination of the magistrate
but carefully limits the role of a reviewing court as well to that of simply ' * * * ensur[ing]
that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for * * * concluding’ that probable cause
existed. * * * ' Id. at 238–239, 103 S. Ct. at 2332. In this regard, we find the following
language especially pertinent to the case before us:
{¶27} "'* * * [W]e have repeatedly said that after-the-fact scrutiny by courts of the
sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the form of de novo review. A magistrate's
‘determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts.’
Spinelli, supra, at 419[, 89 S.Ct. at 591]. * * * ' Gates, supra, at 236, 103 S. Ct. at 2331.
{¶28} "'We also have said that ‘[a]lthough in a particular case it may not be easy
to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the
resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the
preference to be accorded to warrants,’ United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109[,
85 S. Ct. 741, 746, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684] 1965). * * * ' Gates, supra, at 237, fn. 10, 103 S. Ct.
at 2331, fn. 10. See, also, Massachusetts v. Upton, supra, at 733, 104 S.Ct. at 2088.
{¶29} "From the foregoing language, it is clear that reviewing courts may not
substitute their own judgment for that of the issuing magistrate by conducting a de novo
determination as to whether the affidavit contains sufficient probable cause upon which
the reviewing court would issue the search warrant. On the contrary, reviewing courts
should accord great deference to the magistrate's determination of probable cause, and
Holmes County, Case No. 13CA010 8
doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be resolved in favor of upholding the
warrant. Gates, supra, at 237, fn. 10, 103 S. Ct. at 2331, fn. 10. It is equally important to
note that, in this context, 'reviewing court' clearly includes a trial court conducting a
suppression hearing as well as the appellate courts, insofar as we are all conducting the
same 'after-the-fact scrutiny' of the sufficiency of the affidavit.
{¶30} "Thus, under the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis of Gates, supra,
the precise question before us in this case is simply whether we can say that agent
Buffington's affidavit provided a substantial basis for the magistrate's conclusion that
there was a fair probability that marijuana or related paraphernalia would be found in the
defendant's residence. Considering the guidelines for review set forth above, we must
answer this question in the affirmative."
{¶31} The record demonstrates Deputy Warden Michael Phillips visited the
residence on three separate occasions. The affidavit avers the animals were in an
unhealthy environment evidenced by an obvious odor of ammonia due to a buildup of
urine and feces. The subjective characterization of the odor as extremely overwhelming
versus strong is not indicative of bad faith. Likewise, we find the representation
Appellant was not currently licensed was due to the timing of the inquiry, not bad faith.3
Accordingly, based upon the above, we find the trial court did not err in overruling
Appellant's motion to suppress.
3
Appellant secured dog licenses on the last days available to do so and after the Dog
Warden had checked on the status earlier that same day.
Holmes County, Case No. 13CA010 9
{¶32} The March 19, 2013 Judgment Entry entered by the Holmes County
Municipal Court overruling Appellant's motion to suppress is affirmed
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Delaney, J. concur