Prosecutor throws out convictions based on court of appeals decision, says warrant was sound
A prosecuting attorney stood by the validity of a search warrant that was found to be without merit by the Ohio Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeals.
Holmes County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Christine Williams, Tuesday, July 26, threw out drug paraphernalia convictions for Brooklyn A. Bryant, 21, and Bryan D. Dronebarger, 24, both of 7124 Township Road 323, Millersburg. The charges stem from Nov. 3, 2009, when local law enforcement working with Medway Drug Enforcement Agency served a search warrant at the 7124 TR 323 residence. The warrant was issued on an affidavit that said a marijuana grow operation was underway, but no grow operation was found.
The warrant’s validity was contested in a May 18, 2010 motion to suppress hearing in which Holmes County Municipal Court Judge Jane Irving ruled the warrant was sound. Bryant and Dronebarger pleaded no contest to drug paraphernalia charges brought as a result of the raid in August 2010.
The court of appeals reversed Irving’s ruling that the warrant, as challenged by Bryant and Dronebarger’s attorneys, Andrew Hyde and Jeff Kellogg, was based on valid intelligence. Writing in their decision, the appellate court stated that “if the false statements noted above are excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause.”
Williams said she stands by Irving’s rulings and vacated the convictions against Bryant and Dronebarger only because of the court of appeals decision.
“We dismissed the charges because of the court of appeals decision, we had no choice,” Williams said. “I disagree with the decision. Given the few mistakes, if you take those out, there was still enough evidence to support the warrant.”
At the motion to suppress hearing, Hyde and Kellogg argued that the search warrant was not backed by an accurate representation of the facts. Williams acknowledged some discrepancies in the hearing, but said the warrant was prepared with sound intelligence.
Hyde and Kellogg presented evidence across the board that challenged the facts on which the search warrant was based. The warrant, prepared by a Medway agent, stated that Holmes County Sheriff’s Deputy Tim Stryker, on a prior visit to the residence during a domestic dispute, noted that all basement windows were covered. The search warrant further claimed Stryker was not permitted to enter the residence.
Stryker testified at the motion hearing that he only reported one basement window covered. He said he was let in to the residence, but not to the basement where Dronebarger was believed to be.
The search warrant’s contention that a grow operation was in process was also based on electric usage records that showed the TR 323 residence had higher than normal electrical usage. At the suppression hearing, however, a representative of Holmes/Wayne Electric said the usage was average for their customers. The records used in comparison included a freezer barn and an Amish household.
The appellate court’s motion essentially agrees with Kellogg and Hyde’s assertions. It writes that Irving, acting as primary fact finder, agreed with the facts as presented by Medway, even though “these findings are not supported by the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.”
Kellogg said he and Hyde’s case was validated by the higher court.
“From the beginning, once the state provided us with the evidence, Hyde and I were convinced the search was illegal,” Kellogg said. “I do feel good that we were able to prove that.”
Holmes County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Christine Williams, Tuesday, July 26, threw out drug paraphernalia convictions for Brooklyn A. Bryant, 21, and Bryan D. Dronebarger, 24, both of 7124 Township Road 323, Millersburg. The charges stem from Nov. 3, 2009, when local law enforcement working with Medway Drug Enforcement Agency served a search warrant at the 7124 TR 323 residence. The warrant was issued on an affidavit that said a marijuana grow operation was underway, but no grow operation was found.
The warrant’s validity was contested in a May 18, 2010 motion to suppress hearing in which Holmes County Municipal Court Judge Jane Irving ruled the warrant was sound. Bryant and Dronebarger pleaded no contest to drug paraphernalia charges brought as a result of the raid in August 2010.
The court of appeals reversed Irving’s ruling that the warrant, as challenged by Bryant and Dronebarger’s attorneys, Andrew Hyde and Jeff Kellogg, was based on valid intelligence. Writing in their decision, the appellate court stated that “if the false statements noted above are excised from the affidavit, the remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause.”
Williams said she stands by Irving’s rulings and vacated the convictions against Bryant and Dronebarger only because of the court of appeals decision.
“We dismissed the charges because of the court of appeals decision, we had no choice,” Williams said. “I disagree with the decision. Given the few mistakes, if you take those out, there was still enough evidence to support the warrant.”
At the motion to suppress hearing, Hyde and Kellogg argued that the search warrant was not backed by an accurate representation of the facts. Williams acknowledged some discrepancies in the hearing, but said the warrant was prepared with sound intelligence.
Hyde and Kellogg presented evidence across the board that challenged the facts on which the search warrant was based. The warrant, prepared by a Medway agent, stated that Holmes County Sheriff’s Deputy Tim Stryker, on a prior visit to the residence during a domestic dispute, noted that all basement windows were covered. The search warrant further claimed Stryker was not permitted to enter the residence.
Stryker testified at the motion hearing that he only reported one basement window covered. He said he was let in to the residence, but not to the basement where Dronebarger was believed to be.
The search warrant’s contention that a grow operation was in process was also based on electric usage records that showed the TR 323 residence had higher than normal electrical usage. At the suppression hearing, however, a representative of Holmes/Wayne Electric said the usage was average for their customers. The records used in comparison included a freezer barn and an Amish household.
The appellate court’s motion essentially agrees with Kellogg and Hyde’s assertions. It writes that Irving, acting as primary fact finder, agreed with the facts as presented by Medway, even though “these findings are not supported by the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.”
Kellogg said he and Hyde’s case was validated by the higher court.
“From the beginning, once the state provided us with the evidence, Hyde and I were convinced the search was illegal,” Kellogg said. “I do feel good that we were able to prove that.”
Published: July 26, 2011
