Typographical Error In Search Warrant Summary
MILLERSBURG — What admittedly was a typographical error in a search warrant was just that, according to a Holmes County judge, who, after reviewing the evidence and hearing testimony, said the error was not enough to suppress evidence seized during the subsequent search.
Charles M. Bucher Sr., 62, of 13027 Township Road 511, Big Prairie, recently was indicted by a Holmes County grand jury on related criminal charges. He has pleaded not guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to illegal manufacture of drugs, illegal cultivation of marijuana and possession of hashish.
Bucher's charges originated with a July aerial eradication effort, which led investigators to the door of his home. There they saw marijuana growing outside the house and, in plain view, evidence of illegal …show more content…
It was the same address included in all but the first paragraph of the warrant, the property he described, under oath, to Lee and the same address he connected, via several databases to Bucher.
He said he did not notice at the time the address of a previously searched property, unrelated to the Bucher case, was inadvertently duplicated on the document.
In his March 23 judgement entry, Judge Robert Rinfret notes Bucher did not dispute the probable cause to search the residence, based on the aerial observations and those made from the ground.
He summarizes the only question before the court is whether the “one paragraph which mistakenly lists the wrong address sufficient to suppress the evidence.”
Subsequently, and after reviewing the written motions, Stryker's testimony, the documents in question and case law on the matter, Rinfret opines, “The court finds that the typographical error by the officer is not sufficiently unconstitutional to suppress the
Charles M. Bucher Sr., 62, of 13027 Township Road 511, Big Prairie, recently was indicted by a Holmes County grand jury on related criminal charges. He has pleaded not guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to illegal manufacture of drugs, illegal cultivation of marijuana and possession of hashish.
Bucher's charges originated with a July aerial eradication effort, which led investigators to the door of his home. There they saw marijuana growing outside the house and, in plain view, evidence of illegal …show more content…
It was the same address included in all but the first paragraph of the warrant, the property he described, under oath, to Lee and the same address he connected, via several databases to Bucher.
He said he did not notice at the time the address of a previously searched property, unrelated to the Bucher case, was inadvertently duplicated on the document.
In his March 23 judgement entry, Judge Robert Rinfret notes Bucher did not dispute the probable cause to search the residence, based on the aerial observations and those made from the ground.
He summarizes the only question before the court is whether the “one paragraph which mistakenly lists the wrong address sufficient to suppress the evidence.”
Subsequently, and after reviewing the written motions, Stryker's testimony, the documents in question and case law on the matter, Rinfret opines, “The court finds that the typographical error by the officer is not sufficiently unconstitutional to suppress the