DocketNumber: No. 2008 CA 00069.
Citation Numbers: 2009 Ohio 2020
Judges: EDWARDS, J.
Filed Date: 4/27/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 3} On December 20, 2007, appellee filed a Motion in Limine. Appellee, in his motion, argued, in part, that letters seized from the house where appellee was arrested should be excluded at trial because they contained inadmissible hearsay and because the State would not be able to properly authenticate the letters. The letters had been seized from a closet during execution of a search warrant and were written to appellee by a man by the name of Larry Grimes.
{¶ 4} A hearing on appellee's motion was held on January 25, 2008. At the hearing, appellee's counsel orally supplemented the Motion in Limine and argued that the letters were outside of the scope of the search warrant. *Page 3
{¶ 5} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on March 13, 2008, the trial court granted appellee's Motion in Limine and ordered that the letters be excluded from all phases of the trial. Thereafter, on March 19, 2008, the trial court filed a Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment Entry. The trial court, in such entry, indicated that appellee's Motion in Limine was argued as a Motion to Suppress and that it was treating "defense counsel's argument to exclude the letters based on their discovery exceeding the scope of the search warrant as an oral motion to suppress." The trial court then granted the oral Motion to Suppress and ordered that the letters be excluded from all phases of the trial.
{¶ 6} Appellant State of Ohio now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:1
{¶ 7} "THE COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE DEFENDANT THAT CONTAINED GANG REFERENCES WHICH WERE FOUND DURING THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH PERMITTED POLICE TO SEARCH FOR GANG PARAPHERNALIA; GANG WRITINGS; AND ANY WRITING THAT INCLUDES GANG SYMBOLS, SIGNS, OR GRAFFITI."
{¶ 9} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress. 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 the findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See State v. Fanning *Page 4
(1982)
{¶ 10} At issue in the case sub judice is whether the trial court erred in suppressing the letters that were found during the execution of a search warrant. The letters were found in a padlocked closet along with drugs and a handgun and were in envelopes addressed to appellee from a prison inmate named Larry Grimes. Grimes' name and prisoner identification number were on the envelopes, which was identified as prisoner mail. Several of the letters contained references to past, present and future illegal activities as well as gang references.
{¶ 11} The trial court, in the case sub judice, held that the letters were not in "plain view" and, on such basis, ordered the same suppressed.
{¶ 12} However, we find that the letters fell within the scope of the search warrant and that the trial court, therefore, erred in ordering their suppression. The *Page 5 search warrant in this case authorized the police to search for the following, among other items:
{¶ 13} "Gang paraphernalia, gang writings including rap lyrics that contains gang references, any writing that includes gang symbols signs or graffiti, gang rosters and contact information in both electronic and paper format."
{¶ 14} The permissible scope of a search is governed by the terms set forth in the search warrant. See Horton v. California (1990),
{¶ 15} Appellee argues that the trial court did not err in granting the Motion to Suppress because the search warrant did not authorize the police to seize letters. Appellee further notes that the envelopes containing the letters did not contain gang references, graffiti or symbols. According to appellee, "[h]ad the envelopes contained gang references, graffiti or symbols, the letters would have fallen into the items listed within the warrant."
{¶ 16} In United States v. Ross (1982),
{¶ 17} In State v. Seibert, Tusc. Case No. 2004-AP-060048, 2005-Ohio-275, this Court cited Ross, supra., in holding that an officer who was conducting a search for items related to child pornography did not exceed the scope of the search warrant by opening drawers and a container in which cocaine was found. This Court, in Seibert, specifically held, in relevant part, as follows: "The drawers could easily have contained ``floppy disks, cassette or other tapes, CD's, and any other permanent or transient storage devices; records or documents contained on paper in handwritten, typed, photocopied, or printed form, or stored on any other type of media . . . ``Detective Bickford testified at the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress that some of the external storage devices can be as small as a ``remote of a key chain.' (T. at 11). Consequently, the drawer fell within the scope of the search warrant, and the police officers did not have to obtain an additional warrant to open the drawer." Id. at paragraph 18.
{¶ 18} In State v. Brewster,
{¶ 19} As is stated above, the search warrant in the case sub judice authorized the police to search for the following:
{¶ 20} "Gang paraphernalia, gang writings including rap lyrics that contains gang references, any writing that includes gang symbols signs or graffiti, gang rosters and contact information in both electronic and paper format." (Emphasis added).
{¶ 21} While appellee argues that the search warrant did not list "letters" as an item to be seized, we note that the dictionary defines the word "letter" as including "a direct or personal written . . . message addressed to a person or organization." (Emphasis added). See Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition 1993). *Page 8 Clearly, a writing falls within such definition. While appellee also argues that the envelopes containing the letters did not contain "gang paraphernalia, gang writings . . .", envelopes are containers that frequently contain letters. As noted by appellant in its brief, "[t]he primary purpose of an envelope is to hold writings. When viewing an envelope, even a blank envelope, a reasonable person could conclude that there might be [a] writing contained inside." Moreover, in the case sub judice, the envelope was not blank, but rather was addressed to appellee from an inmate named Larry Grimes.
{¶ 22} Based on the foregoing, we find that the letters fell within the scope of the search warrant and that the trial court erred in granting appellee's Motion to Suppress the same.
{¶ 23} Appellant's sole assignment of error is, therefore, sustained.
{¶ 24} Accordingly, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Edwards, J., Hoffman, P.J., and Farmer, J., concur.