Close Window

Courts Can Consider Sworn but Unrecorded Oral Statements When Determining If Evidence Should Be Allowed into a Trial

In the case of State v. Dibble, 2020-Ohio-546, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a court can consider sworn but unrecorded oral statements when determining whether a court should allow evidence into trial discovered through a defective warrant.

In this case, police discovered video tapes of high school girls in a locker room in a teacher’s house. The warrant the police used to make this discovery was defective because the conduct alleged in the affidavit for the warrant did not justify searching the teacher’s house. Although the warrant was defective, the state argued that an exception for admission of the video tapes in trial applied because the police relied on the warrant in good-faith. The teacher’s defense responded that no good-faith could exist because nothing giving rise to good-faith reliance existed within the four-corners of the affidavit for the warrant.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that police could rely on statements made to a court not within the affidavit for a warrant because the purpose of the good-faith reliance exception is not to test the sufficiency of the affidavit for a warrant but an officer’s reliance on that warrant.

To read this case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.