Appeals court upholds Highland County drug trafficking conviction
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
Ohio's Fourth District Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of a Highland County man following a drug trafficking conviction.
According to the decision filed online by the court July 19, John D. Ralston, represented by attorney Jim Boulger, had been convicted during a trial in Highland County Common Pleas Court on one count of trafficking in drugs, a felony of the fifth degree. Ralston alleged one assignment of error in the appeal, saying, "the trial court erred in finding that the allegations contained in the affidavit in support of the search warrant established probable cause."
The court of appeals wrote that they found "no error regarding the trial court's holding" and overruled the assignment of error.
According to the judgment from the court of appeals, in October 2009 Detective Sergeant Richard Warner of the Highland County Sheriff's Office requested a search warrant of a residence at 208 East Main Street in Leesburg. It was based on information the U.S. 23 Pipeline Major Crimes Taskforce received from a "reliable source" regarding the cultivation and trafficking of marijuana. The source alleged there was a "stash house" across the street from the aforementioned residence. Additionally, the Leesburg Police Department had received information that there was "traffic" in and out of the residence between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m.
"Upon conducting a search, several items were seized as evidence, including cash, six black tar heroin capsuels, six white heroin capsuels, and several other types of pills (all controlled substances) ... [S]everal items related to the cultivation of marijuana were discovered including grow lights, exhaust fans (two), four heat mats, an automatic watering system, digital timers, and a hydroponics table,'" according to the judgment from the court of appeals. "Det. Warner also averred that (Ralston) had two drug-related arrests, one of which resulted in a conviction for trafficking in marijuana. Furthermore, based upon Det. Warner’s 15 years of law enforcement experience and training in narcotics investigation, it is common for those engaged in illegal narcotics activity to hide narcotics in a secondary location or 'stash house.' Det. Warner had corroborated that Appellant resided at the 208 residence and was in the process of purchasing the 209 residence. Based upon the affidavit, a judge issued the search warrant and a search of the two residences yielded contraband. Appellant moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that the affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for finding probable cause. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion, and Appellant then pled no contest to the charges against him. The trial court convicted Appellant of trafficking in drugs and possession of drugs, which he now appeals."
The assignment of error alleges, "The trial court erred in finding that the allegations contained in the affidavit in support of the search warrant established a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be located at the subject property."
Upon reviewing the case, the court found, "the magistrate (who issued the warrant) had substantial facts from which he could find
that there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found at Appellant’s residences. Appellant was a convicted drug trafficker and only five months prior to the affidavit, officers had recovered marijuana cultivation equipment from (Ralston's) residence. In Det. Warner’s experience and training, persons engaged in illegal activity often kept drugs or money in a secondary location; this made the allegation that Appellant was secreting the marijuana in a house across the street from his residence more plausible. Appellant was indeed in the process of purchasing the 209 residence, from which there was traffic in the early morning hours. This activity becomes both noteworthy and suspicious when considering Appellant’s history, the recent recovery of cultivation items from the 208 residence, and the tendency of those involved in drug trafficking to establish a stash house. The suspicion surrounding Appellant and the 209 residence then increases in light of the third party’s tip that Appellant was storing cultivated marijuana in the 209 residence. Considering all of these facts together, there was a substantial basis for the magistrate to believe that the affidavit established probable cause to search (Ralston)’s residences."
The affidavit was further supported, according to the court, by the fact that Ralston was in the process of purchasing the 209 residence, and that the early morning traffic had been independently verified by the LPD.
"Having considered the affidavit and the totality of the circumstances therein, and “keeping in mind the preference to be accorded to warrants in doubtful or marginal cases,” we find there was a substantial basis for the magistrate’s finding that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant.
The judgment was signed by Judge Matthew McFarland, Judge Peter Abele and Judge William Harsha. Abele and Harhsa concurred in judgment only.
Ohio's Fourth District Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of a Highland County man following a drug trafficking conviction.
According to the decision filed online by the court July 19, John D. Ralston, represented by attorney Jim Boulger, had been convicted during a trial in Highland County Common Pleas Court on one count of trafficking in drugs, a felony of the fifth degree. Ralston alleged one assignment of error in the appeal, saying, "the trial court erred in finding that the allegations contained in the affidavit in support of the search warrant established probable cause."
The court of appeals wrote that they found "no error regarding the trial court's holding" and overruled the assignment of error.
According to the judgment from the court of appeals, in October 2009 Detective Sergeant Richard Warner of the Highland County Sheriff's Office requested a search warrant of a residence at 208 East Main Street in Leesburg. It was based on information the U.S. 23 Pipeline Major Crimes Taskforce received from a "reliable source" regarding the cultivation and trafficking of marijuana. The source alleged there was a "stash house" across the street from the aforementioned residence. Additionally, the Leesburg Police Department had received information that there was "traffic" in and out of the residence between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m.
"Upon conducting a search, several items were seized as evidence, including cash, six black tar heroin capsules, six white heroin capsules, and several other types of pills (all controlled substances) ... [S]everal items related to the cultivation of marijuana were discovered including grow lights, exhaust fans (two), four heat mats, an automatic watering system, digital timers, and a hydroponics table,'" according to the judgment from the court of appeals. "Det. Warner also averred that (Ralston) had two drug-related arrests, one of which resulted in a conviction for trafficking in marijuana. Furthermore, based upon Det. Warner’s 15 years of law enforcement experience and training in narcotics investigation, it is common for those engaged in illegal narcotics activity to hide narcotics in a secondary location or 'stash house.' Det. Warner had corroborated that Appellant resided at the 208 residence and was in the process of purchasing the 209 residence. Based upon the affidavit, a judge issued the search warrant and a search of the two residences yielded contraband. Appellant moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that the affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for finding probable cause. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion, and Appellant then pled no contest to the charges against him. The trial court convicted Appellant of trafficking in drugs and possession of drugs, which he now appeals."
The assignment of error alleges, "The trial court erred in finding that the allegations contained in the affidavit in support of the search warrant established a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be located at the subject property."
Upon reviewing the case, the court found, "the magistrate (who issued the warrant) had substantial facts from which he could find that there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found at Appellant’s residences. Appellant was a convicted drug trafficker and only five months prior to the affidavit, officers had recovered marijuana cultivation equipment from (Ralston's) residence. In Det. Warner’s experience and training, persons engaged in illegal activity often kept drugs or money in a secondary location; this made the allegation that Appellant was secreting the marijuana in a house across the street from his residence more plausible. Appellant was indeed in the process of purchasing the 209 residence, from which there was traffic in the early morning hours. This activity becomes both noteworthy and suspicious when considering Appellant’s history, the recent recovery of cultivation items from the 208 residence, and the tendency of those involved in drug trafficking to establish a stash house. The suspicion surrounding Appellant and the 209 residence then increases in light of the third party’s tip that Appellant was storing cultivated marijuana in the 209 residence. Considering all of these facts together, there was a substantial basis for the magistrate to believe that the affidavit established probable cause to search (Ralston)’s residences."
The affidavit was further supported, according to the court, by the fact that Ralston was in the process of purchasing the 209 residence, and that the early morning traffic had been independently verified by the LPD.
"Having considered the affidavit and the totality of the circumstances therein, and 'keeping in mind the preference to be accorded to warrants in doubtful or marginal cases,' we find there was a substantial basis for the magistrate’s finding that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant."
The judgment was signed by Judge Matthew McFarland, Judge Peter Abele and Judge William Harsha. Abele and Harsha concurred in judgment only.
[[In-content Ad]]