Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed August 08, 2016 - Case No. 2016-0238 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. 2016-0238 Plaintiff-Appellee, : : On Appeal from the Mahoning County v. : Court of Appeals, : Seventh Appellate District SHERRY BEMBRY : Case Nos. 2014 MA 51, 2014 MA 52 AND : HARSIMRAN SINGH : Defendant-Appellants. : ______________________________________________________________________________ MERIT BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS SHERRY BEMBRY AND HARSIMRAN SINGH ______________________________________________________________________________ PAUL J. GAINS (0020323) LOUIS M. DEFABIO (0059101) Mahoning County Prosecutor 4822 Market Street, Suite 220 Youngstown, Ohio 44512 RALPH RIVERA (0082063) (330) 782-3000 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney (330) 782-5224 – Fax [email protected] 21 W. Boardman St. Youngstown, Ohio 44503 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS (330) 740-2330 SHERRY BEMBRY AND (330) 740-2008 – Fax HARSIMRAN SINGH [email protected] OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO KATHERINE ROSS-KINZIE (0089762) Assistant State Public Defender 250 East Broad Street – Suite 1400 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 466-5394 (614) 752-5167 – Fax [email protected] COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS .............................................................................1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER........................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................1 PROPOSITION OF LAW: The exclusionary rule is the appropriate remedy under Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution for a violation of R.C. 2935.12. ............................1 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................13 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page No. CASES: Arnold v. City of Cleveland, 67 Ohio St.3d 35, 616 N.E.2d 163 (1993) ...................................4 Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) .......................4 Benefield v. State, 160 So.2d 706 (Fla. 1964) ............................................................................8 Berumen v. State, 182 P.3d 635 (Alaska App.2008) .................................................................9 Cassady v. Yellowstone Cnty. Mont. Sheriff Dep't, 333 Mont. 371, 2006 MT 217, 143 P.3d 148 ........................................................................................................................6 Commonwealth v. Carlton, 549 Pa. 174, 701 A.2d 143 (1997) .................................................8 Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 403, 598 A.2d 539 (1991) .............................................7 Commonwealth v. Crompton, 545 Pa. 586, 682 A.2d 286 (1996) .............................................8 Harker v. State, 637 P.2d 716 (Alaska App.1981) ....................................................................9 Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (2006) ............................................ passim State v. Anyan, 325 Mont. 245, 2004 MT 395, 104 P.3d 511 ....................................................6 State v. Attaway, 117 N.M. 141, 1994-NMSC-011, 870 P.2d 103 ............................................7 State v. Brown, 143 Ohio St.3d, 2015-Ohio-2438, 39 N.E.3d 496 ............................................5 State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323, 2003-Ohio-3931, 792 N.E.2d 175 .............................3, 4, 5 State v. Cable, 51 So.3d 434 (Fla.2010) ....................................................................................8 State v. Edmonds, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 40002, 1979 Ohio App. LEXIS 9751 (Apr. 19, 1979) .....................................................................................................................3 State v. Furry, 31 Ohio App.2d 107, 286 N.E.2d 301 (6th Dist.1971) ......................................3 State v. Jean-Paul, 2013-NMCA-032, 295 P.3d 1072 .............................................................7 State v. Mole, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5124 .....................................................................3 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page No. CASES: (cont’d) State v. Oliver, 112 Ohio St.3d 447, 2007-Ohio-372, 860 N.E.2d 1002 ...................................2 State v. Taylor, 135 Ohio App.3d 182, 733 N.E.2d 310 (12th Dist.1999) ................................2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution .............................................................. passim Article I, Section 14, Ohio Constitution .......................................................................... passim Article I, Section 8, Pennsylvania Constitution .........................................................................8 Article II, Section 10, Montana Constitution .........................................................................6, 7 Article II, Section 11, Montana Constitution .........................................................................6, 7 Article II, Section 10, New Mexico Constitution ......................................................................7 STATUTES: AS 12.25.100 .............................................................................................................................9 O.R.C. 2935.12 ....................................................................................................................1, 10 O.R.C. 2935.23 ..........................................................................................................................2 O.R.C. 2935.26 ..........................................................................................................................4 O.R.C. 4511.33 ..........................................................................................................................5 O.R.C. 4513.39 ..........................................................................................................................5 RULES: Ohio Crim.R. 32 .........................................................................................................................1 Pennsylvania Crim.R. 207 .........................................................................................................7 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page No. OTHER AUTHORITIES: 42 U.S.C. section 1983 ............................................................................................................10 Brennan, State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 489 (1977) .......................................................................................................3 Cloud, A Conservative House United: How the Post-Warren Court Dismantled the Exclusionary Rule, 10 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 477 (2013) ...............................................10 Dripps, The "New" Exclusionary Rule Debate: From "Still Preoccupied with 1985" to "Virtual Deterrence", 37 Fordham Urb. L.J. 743 (2010) ....................................12 Harris, How Accountability-Based Policing Can Reinforce-or Replace-The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, 7 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 149 (2009) ...................................12 Schulhofer, More Essential Than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty- First Century 68 (2010) .....................................................................................................12 Taslitz, Why Judicial Integrity Justifies the Exclusionary Rule, 10 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 419 (2013) ...........................................................................................................12 Tomkovicz, Hudson v. Michigan and the Future of Fourth Amendment Exclusion, 93 Iowa L. Rev. 1819 (2008) .............................................................................................11 Totten and Cheurprakobkit, The Knock-and-Announce Rule and Police Searches after Hudson v. Michigan: Can Alternative Deterrents Effectively Replace Exclusion for Rule Violations? 15 New Crim. L. R. 414 (2012) .......................................11 iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Amicus curiae hereby adopts the statement of the case and facts set forth in Appellants Bembry and Singh’s merit brief. STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER The Office of the Ohio Public Defender (OPD) is a state agency designed to represent indigent criminal defendants and to coordinate criminal-defense efforts throughout Ohio. The OPD also plays a key role in the promulgation of Ohio statutory law and procedural rules. The primary focus of the OPD is on the appellate phase of criminal cases, including direct appeals and collateral attacks on convictions. The primary mission of the OPD is to protect and defend the rights of indigent persons by providing and supporting superior representation in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. As amicus curiae, the OPD offers this Court the perspective of experienced practitioners who routinely handle criminal cases in Ohio courts.