The Akron Legal News

Appeals court rejects claim that search was illegal in drug bust

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: January 3, 2014

Ruling that a search warrant was properly granted, the 3rd District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a man’s conviction for possession of cocaine.

The three-judge appellate panel ruled recently that a warrant to search Tomas Garza’s home was properly granted after police demonstrated cause to believe he had drugs in the residence.

At a trial in the Henry County Court of Common Pleas, Garza filed a motion to suppress all physical evidence found during the search.

He contended that affidavit presented was insufficient and failed to give the issuing judge probable cause for a search warrant.

A review of the issue revealed that patrolman Justin Ruffer requested a search warrant of Garza’s home in the Napoleon Municipal Court on July 23, 2012.

The sworn affidavit supporting the search warrant explained that the Napoleon Police Department had been informed about a drug transaction happening at Garza’s home on Carey Street.

Ruffer investigated the report and spoke to a witness who had observed the residence for about a month and a half, according to the affidavit.

The witness told Ruffer that she had seen considerable traffic in and out of the residence and specifically noted a maroon GMC truck.

She said the truck would often drop off a female, who would enter the residence for a few minutes and then leave in the truck.

The affidavit stated that the witness had seen the female enter the home and leave on July 23, 2012.

Ruffer saw the truck leave and initiated a traffic stop after seeing it commit a marked lanes violation.

After the occupants gave verbal consent, Ruffer searched the truck and found two tin foil balls under the front passenger seat which contained cocaine.

He also found a plastic bag filled with what appeared to be cocaine in the center console. Ruffer stated in the affidavit that he believed the narcotics came from Garza’s home.

The Napoleon judge reviewed the affidavit and made general inquiries before issuing a warrant to search Garza’s home for “illegal narcotics and/or drug paraphernalia.”

Garza was subsequently arrested and charged with possession.

The Henry County court ruled that although “the affidavit does not identify the source of the information which led to the stop of the vehicle,” the source’s suspicions of drug activity were corroborated by the cocaine found in the truck.

It determined that the warrant was properly granted and Garza pleaded no contest.

The common pleas court found him guilty of possession of cocaine and sentenced him to five years in prison and five years of post-release control.

On appeal, Garza again challenged the search warrant and argued that evidence found as a result of the warrant should have been suppressed.

“Garza takes issue with the trial court’s finding that the vehicle was stopped within ‘the close proximity in time and place’ to the events described by the witness,” Judge John Willamowski wrote for the court.

Garza claimed that because the affidavit did not specify the time and place of the traffic stop the trial court’s findings were unsupported.

The appellate judges, however, ruled that the affidavit neither did not preclude an inference that the stop took place near Garza’s home shortly after the woman left in the truck.

“Accordingly, Garza’s challenge to the trial court’s decision, as it relates to its finding of ‘the close proximity in time and place’ between the events described by the witness and the stop of the ... vehicle, is not well taken. Even if this specific ‘proximity’ finding by the trial court went beyond the facts provided in the affidavit, it did not invalidate the trial court’s conclusion that ‘the information before the issuing judge justified issuance of the warrant,’” Judge Willamowski wrote.

The judges stated that the affidavit was the tangible evidence in the record, but noted that the issuing judge questioned Ruffer about the contents of the affidavit.

They held that it could be reasonably presumed that Ruffer was able to clarify the time and place of the traffic stop upon questioning.

Garza next claimed that the informant’s statements were not credible and were susceptible to an innocent explanation.

The judges ruled that witness credibility is determined by the judge reading the affidavit and issuing the warrant and decline to disturb the issuing judge’s assessment.

They also ruled that the trial court did not uphold the search warrant relying solely on the informant’s statements.

The trial court looked at all of the surrounding circumstances, including the presence of cocaine in the truck seen frequenting the house, and found the search warrant was properly granted.

“We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Ruffer’s observations and finding of drugs in the ... vehicle verified the reliability of the informant’s suspicion of criminal activity at the residence, which arose from her observation of the traffic in front of Garza’s residence and the (woman’s) short visits there,” Judge Willamowski stated.

Finding that the trial court properly rejected Garza’s motion to suppress, the district judges affirmed his conviction and sentence.

Presiding Judge Vernon Preston and Judge Stephen Shaw concurred.

The case is cited State v. Garza, 2013-Ohio-5492.

[Back]