PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION
 HISTORY OF SEARCH WARRANTS
 BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR
WRITING AND OBTAINING A
SEARCH WARRANT IN OHIO
SEARCH WARRANTS
 During the colonial period in America, British
officials were permitted to conduct random and
unlimited searches.
 The unlimited and oftentimes, unwarranted,
intrusions became one of the causes of the
American revolution.
 When the framers of the U.S. Constitution
gathered to write that historic document, the
Fourth Amendment was written to ensure the
right of Americans to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
4TH AMENDMENT
ORIGINATING SOURCE FOR ALL
LAWS RELATING TO SEARCH AND
SEIZURE
“RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
TO BE SECURE IN THEIR
PERSONS, PLACES AND
THINGS”
OHIO STATE CONSTITUTION
 The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and possessions,
against unreasonable searches and seizures
shall not be violated; and no warrant shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, particularly describing the
place to be searched and the person and things
to be seized.
 This language is almost verbatim to the
language of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
SEARCH WARRANTS CAN BE
ISSUED FOR - ORC 2933.21









STOLEN PROPERTY
WEAPONS
DRUGS
FORGED OR COUNTERFEIT ITEMS
OBSCENE MATERIALS (MAPP V. OHIO)
GAMBLING DEVICES
ILLEGAL LIQUOR
HAZ/MAT
ETC
CRITERIA
 BEFORE SEARCH WARRANTS ARE
ISSUED, MUST HAVE PROBABLE
CAUSE.
 MORE THAN MERE
SUSPICION/LESS THAN PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
SEARCH WARRANT MUST
INCLUDE/DESCRIBE
 PLACE TO BE SEARCHED
 PERSONS TO BE SEARCHED
 PROPERTY TO BE SEARCH FOR
 OFFENSE IN RELATION TO
PROPERTY
 PROBABLE CAUSE
 WHY AFFIANT BELIEVES PROPERTY
WILL BE THERE
 ANY OTHER FACTS RELIVANT
AFFIDAVIT DEFINED
WRITTEN OR PRINTED STATEMENT OF
FACTS, MADE VOLUNTARILY, AND
CONFIRMED BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION OF THE
PARTY MAKING IT, TAKEN
BY A PERSON HAVING
THE AUTHORITY TO
ADMINISTER SUCH OATH
OR AFFIRMATION
SPO #3-AFFIANT DEFINED
THE PERSON WHO MAKES OR
SUBSCRIBES THE AFFIDAVIT
 OHIO LAW DEFINES DAYTIME AS
THE HOURS BETWEEN 7:00 AM AND
8:00 PM. SEE CRIM.R. 41 (F)
 THE WARRANT MUST BE
RETURNED TO THE ISSUING JUDGE
OR MAGISTRATE NO LATER THAN
THREE DAYS AFTER ITS ISSUANCE
(NOT INCLUDING SATURDAY,
SUNDAY, OR LEGAL HOLIDAYS).
STATUTORY RECONDITIONS
or NON-CONSENSUAL ENTRY
MUST GIVE NOTICE OF PURPOSE
BEFORE ENTRY MAY BE MADE
If a nighttime search is requested, officers
must indicate some type of urgent
necessity, such as
1. The Criminal activity is being conducted
during nighttime;
2. Protection to officers conducting the
search and seizure;
3. Prevention of the destruction of evidence;
4. Other types of emergency circumstances
Richards v. Wisconsin, U.S. (1997)
The U.S. Supreme Court overruled a
blanket exception created by a lower
court that permitted no-knock entries
in all felony drug cases.
The Court required lower courts to
decide on a case-by-case basis whether
the facts of the case justify a no-knock
entry.
Richards v. Wisconsin, U.S. (1997)
The Court further held for officers to
establish the need for a no-knock entry,
they must “have a reasonable suspicion
that knocking and announcing their
presence, under the particular
circumstances, would be dangerous or
futile, or that it would inhibit the effective
investigation of the crime by, for example,
allowing the destruction of evidence.”
SPO #5-BURDEN OF PROOF
MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE
WARRANT WILL BE ISSUED IS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE ITEMS
WILL BE AT A CERTAIN
LOCATION.
MORE THAN MERE
SUSPICION/LESS THAN
PROOF BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT
 Probable cause is a set of facts and
circumstances known to the affiant
personally or supplied by an informant or
witnesses which causes the affiant to believe
that items sought can be seized by virtue of
being connected with illegal activity and
those items will be found in the place to be
searched
 The finding of probable cause may be based
upon hearsay in whole or in part, provided
there is a substantial basis for believing the
source of the hearsay to be credible
 Not every fact must be included in the
warrant in order to establish probable
cause, however, those facts that are
included must lead the judge or magistrate
to the conclusion that probable cause exists
to believe the items to be seized are located
in the area to be searched.
 The warrant must be supported by the
affiant swearing or affirming the
information contained in the warrant is
true
BEFORE LEAVING LOCATION
 MUST LEAVE COPY OF SEARCH
WARRANT AND INVENTORY (NOT THE
AFFIDAVIT)
 PROMPTLY RETURN THE AFFIDAVIT,
THE WARRANT ITSELF, AND THE
COMPLETED RETURN TO THE ISSUING
JUDGE.
 THE EVIDENCE MUST BE AVAILABLE
TO THE JUDGE IF REQUESTED.
SEARCH WARRANT REQUEST
SEARCH WARRANT REQUEST
SEARCH WARRANTS CAN
BE SEALED WITH THE
APPROVAL OF A JUDGE
ESPECIALLY WHEN
PROTECTING
CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANTS
United States v. Grubbs
126 S. Ct. 1494 (2006)
 The defendant purchased contraband from a
web site operated by an undercover officer.
The government sought an anticipatory search
warrant.
 The contingency of the search was based on
probable cause that would exist if the parcel
has been received by a person(s) and has been
physically taken into the residence.
 Good search?
United States v. Grubbs
126 S. Ct. 1494 (2006)
 The Supreme Court held that probable cause to
sustain a search warrant need only be present
at the time the search is conducted.
 They require the magistrate to determine (1)
that it is now probable that (2) contraband,
evidence of a crime, or a fugitive will be on the
described premises (3) when the warrant is
executed.
Winston v. Lee
470 U.S. 753, 105 S. Ct. 1611 (1985)
 The defendant shot a victim during an armed
robbery, receiving a gunshot wound in the
exchange. Shortly after the officers took the
victim to a hospital, police found the defendant
several blocks away from the shooting. The
officers took him to the hospital, where the
victim identified him as the assailant. The
government asked the court to order the
defendant to undergo surgery to remove the
bullet lodged under his collarbone.
Winston v. Lee
470 U.S. 753, 105 S. Ct. 1611 (1985)
 It asserted that the bullet would provide
evidence of the defendant‘s guilt or innocence.
Expert testimony suggested that the surgery
would only entail a minor incision and could be
performed under local anesthesia. The court
granted the motion. However, X-rays taken
just before surgery was scheduled showed that
the bullet was lodged much deeper than the
surgeon had originally believed.
Winston v. Lee
470 U.S. 753, 105 S. Ct. 1611 (1985)
 ISSUE: Whether courts can order surgery to
remove evidence of a criminal act from a
suspect‘s body?
 HELD: Yes. However, this is a serious
intrusion into the suspect‘s reasonable
expectation of privacy and must be used only in
extreme circumstances.
 As the government had available substantial
additional evidence that the defendant was the
criminal, its need to obtain the bullet was
diminished.