State v. Kellett , 2022 Ohio 4340 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Kellett, 2022-Ohio-4340.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2022 CA 00015
RONALD A. KELLETT
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Licking County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 21 CR 00429
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 2, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JENNY WELLS APRIL F. CAMPBELL
Licking County Prosecutor Campbell Law, LLC
545 Metro Place South – Suite #100
ROBERT N. ABDALLA Dublin, Ohio 43017
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
20 S. Second Street
Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ronald Kellett appeals the judgment entered by the
Licking County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of no contest to
illegal use of a minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance (R.C.
2907.323(A)(1)) and two counts of voyeurism (R.C. 2907.08(B),(C)), and sentencing him
to an aggregate term of incarceration of three years. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In 2019, Appellant pled guilty in the Licking County Municipal Court to public
indecency, aggravated trespass, criminal trespass, and menacing. He was convicted
and placed on probation for three years. Appellant initialed the conditions of his probation
and signed the probation notice. The terms of his probation included the following:
6. During your period of probation, probation officers who are
engaged within the scope of their supervisory duties may search with or
without a warrant…another item of tangible or intangible personal
property... in which you have a right, title, or interest.
14. During your period of probation, you will not…possess…or
search for any legal or illegal pornography. […] To ensure your compliancy
[sic] Probation Officers may search devices owned or used by you.
Searchable devices would include…cell phones.
{¶3} On June 19, 2021, Appellant’s probation officer, Brent Richter, received a
police report which indicated Appellant was arrested at the Hartford Fair. Appellant was
found near the women’s restroom naked from the waist down, and appeared to be
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 3
intoxicated. Richter also received witness statements indicating Appellant was possibly
taking pictures with a cell phone. Sgt. Brown of the Licking County Sheriff’s Department
called Richter, and told Richter deputies had received multiple complaints from victims
Appellant was taking cell phone photos.
{¶4} Richter went to Appellant’s home on June 24, 2021. He met with
Appellant’s wife, who retrieved Appellant’s cell phone and gave Richter the passcode.
Richter searched the phone and discovered multiple explicit videos and images of
females in a bathroom in various stages of undress, and a video of Appellant setting up
a camera in a bathroom. In addition, Appellant’s browser history included searches for
“Watching My Neighbor Pee” and “Watching My Kid Pee.” Supp. Tr. 31.
{¶5} Appellant was indicted by the Licking County Grand Jury for illegal use of a
minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance and two counts of
voyeurism. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence retrieved from his cell phone,
arguing his wife did not have authority to consent to the search of his phone, the police
officer acted as a “stalking horse” for law enforcement in searching the phone, and the
officer did not have reasonable cause to search the phone as required by R.C.
2951.02(A). The trial court overruled the motion, finding Richter had reasonable grounds
to believe Appellant was engaged in activity in violation of his probation while at the
Hartford Fair, and to believe evidence of such activity was in Appellant’s cell phone based
on the police report, witness statements, and Richter’s conversation with Sgt. Brown.
{¶6} Appellant thereafter pled no contest to all charges. The trial court merged
one conviction of voyeurism with the conviction of illegal use of a minor or impaired person
in nudity-oriented material or performance, with the State electing sentencing on illegal
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 4
use of a minor or impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance. The trial
court sentenced Appellant to three years incarceration for illegal use of a minor or
impaired person in nudity-oriented material or performance and ninety days in the Licking
County Justice Center for the remaining voyeurism conviction, to be served concurrently
for an aggregate term of three years incarceration. It is from the March 4, 2022 judgment
of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE SUPPRESSED THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST KELLETT BECAUSE PROBATION OFFICER
RICHTER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS UNDER R.C.
2951.02 TO SEARCH KELLETT’S CELL PHONE.
{¶7} Appellant does not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact. Rather,
Appellant argues the statements of witnesses Appellant was “possibly” using his cell
phone to take photographs at the fair provided Richter with nothing more than a hunch
material in violation of the law or the terms of Appellant’s probation would be found on the
phone.
{¶8} R.C. 2951.02(A) provides in pertinent part:
During the period of a misdemeanor offender's community control
sanction or during the period of a felony offender's nonresidential
sanction, authorized probation officers who are engaged within the
scope of their supervisory duties or responsibilities may search, with or
without a warrant, the person of the offender, the place of residence of
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 5
the offender, and a motor vehicle, another item of tangible or intangible
personal property, or other real property in which the offender has a
right, title, or interest or for which the offender has the express or implied
permission of a person with a right, title, or interest to use, occupy, or
possess if the probation officers have reasonable grounds to believe that
the offender is not abiding by the law or otherwise is not complying with
the conditions of the misdemeanor offender's community control
sanction or the conditions of the felony offender's nonresidential
sanction.
{¶9} We find the trial court did not err in finding Richter had reasonable grounds
to believe evidence of violation of the law or the terms of his probation would be found on
Appellant’s cell phone. Appellant was found outside the women’s restroom intoxicated,
and naked from the waist down. Multiple witness statements indicated he might have
been taking pictures with his cell phone. Despite the fact these statements used phrasing
such as “possibly,” we find the multiple witness statements indicating Appellant’s use of
the cell phone, coupled with the circumstances in which Appellant was found half-naked
near the women’s restroom, provided the officer with reasonable cause to believe
evidence of violation of the law or Appellant’s probation might be found on the cell phone.
{¶10} Further, we note Appellant relies on this Court’s decision in State v.
Campbell, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2019 CA 00055, 2020-Ohio-4119, 157 N.E.3d 373 for
the proposition R.C. 2951.02 provides statutory protection against warrantless searches
in addition to those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment which implicate the
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 6
exclusionary rule. In Campbell, this Court concluded because the probation officer did
not have reasonable cause to support a warrantless search of a probationer’s home, the
trial court erred in overruling Campbell’s motion to suppress. However, the Ohio Supreme
Court, while agreeing the search violated R.C. 2951.02, reversed this Court, concluding
the exclusionary rule does not apply to a violation of R.C. 2951.02:
Similarly, this court has long held that the exclusionary rule applies
“to violations of a constitutional nature only.” Kettering v. Hollen, 64 Ohio
St.2d 232, 234, 416 N.E.2d 598 (1980). Accord State v. Emerson, 134 Ohio
St.3d 191, 2012-Ohio-5047, 981 N.E.2d 787, ¶ 32; State v. Jones, 121 Ohio
St.3d 103, 2009-Ohio-316, 902 N.E.2d 464, ¶ 21; State v. Myers, 26 Ohio
St.2d 190, 196-197, 271 N.E.2d 245 (1971). Thus, we will not apply the
exclusionary rule “to statutory violations falling short of constitutional
violations, absent a legislative mandate requiring the application of the
exclusionary rule.” Kettering at 234, 416 N.E.2d 598; see also State v.
French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446, 449, 650 N.E.2d 887 (1995). A plain reading of
R.C. 2951.02(A) reveals no such legislative mandate to impose an
exclusionary remedy for a violation of the statute's reasonable-grounds
requirement. Compare R.C. 2933.63(A) (authorizing, among other things,
the suppression of evidence derived from an unlawful wiretap). Absent such
a legislative mandate, this court is without authority to write an exclusionary
remedy into the statute.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00015 7
Because there is no basis in either the statute or the United States
Constitution to apply the exclusionary rule to violations of R.C. 2951.02(A),
the court of appeals erred by concluding that Campbell's motion to suppress
should have been granted and reversing the contrary decision of the trial
court. Our conclusion that the exclusionary rule does not apply makes it
unnecessary to address whether the probation officer's search would have
fallen under the good-faith exception to that rule.
{¶11} State v. Campbell, 2022-Ohio-3626, ¶¶22-23.
{¶12} Therefore, based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent holding, even if we
agreed with Appellant Richter lacked reasonable cause for the search of the cell phone,
the exclusionary rule would not apply to the statutory violation, and suppression of the
evidence taken from Appellant’s cell phone would not be required.
{¶13} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Licking County
Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, John, J. concur