Login | July 16, 2025
11th District: Drug evidence properly seized in house fire
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: February 2, 2022
An Ashtabula woman argued crystal meth and ammunition was illegally seized from her home after firefighters put out a blaze at her property.
An Ashtabula County trial court previously granted Nicole Hommes’ motion to suppress evidence that was seized by the police department. However, the 11th District Court of Appeals recently reversed the trial court’s judgment.
In February 2019, the Ashtabula Fire Department responded to Hommes’ residence. Multiple children safely exited the home. Fire Capt. Stephen Chase, a certified fire investigator, searched the house to determine the origin and cause of the fire. Hommes was not present when the fire ignited and did not return until after it had been suppressed.
Based on items discovered in and seized from the home, Hommes was indicted on charges of aggravated trafficking in drugs, aggravated possession of drugs, possessing criminal tools, illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia and endangering children.
The trial court found Chase was authorized to enter the residence without a warrant to conduct an immediate investigation into the origin and cause of the fire; he was lawfully present, and the suspected illegal drugs and paraphernalia were in plain view; and, recognizing it was not his job to collect evidence of that nature, it was appropriate to report his observations to the police department.
The court concluded, however, that the police department should have taken the information received from the firefighters to an impartial magistrate to determine whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant to search the residence.
On appeal, the state of Ohio argued the trial court relied solely on the 11th District court’s opinion in State v. Sutcliffe (2008-Ohio-6782). The state claimed the facts and circumstances in Hommes were different than those in Sutcliffe, so it was in error to grant Hommes’ motion.
“Here, applying these Fourth Amendment standards and exceptions, we conclude that Capt. Chase was permitted to enter the residence without a warrant under the doctrine of exigent circumstances,” 11th District Judge Thomas R. Wright said in his 3-0 opinion. “During the initial entry, while investigating and before he had determined the cause and origin of the fire, Capt. Chase discovered contraband in plain view. Due to limitations on his training with evidence collection, he acted appropriately in requesting assistance from the police department.
“Patrolman (Thomas) Perry was permitted to enter the residence and seize the contraband without a warrant only because he ‘stepped into the shoes’ of Captain Chase, who was still on the scene conducting his initial investigation. Patrolman Perry entered solely for the purpose of assisting Captain Chase; he collected only the items to which he was directed by Captain Chase; he did not search any other area of the residence; and he did not further intrude on Hommes’ privacy interests. Accordingly, the warrantless seizure did not violate Hommes’ Fourth Amendment rights.”
Judge Wright noted that in Sutcliffe, a case involving a volunteer firefighter who responded to a house fire when the owner was not present, the appellate court determined the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.
In Sutcliffe, a firefighter called the sheriff’s office to investigate the purported illegal grow of marijuana, and a search warrant was not obtained prior to any law enforcement officials entering the residence.
“Not at issue in Sutcliffe, however, was whether the fire officials had concluded their immediate investigation into the fire’s cause and origin by the time law enforcement entered the residence,” Judge Wright wrote. “The evidence was properly suppressed in Sutcliffe because no warrant had been obtained and there was no discussion as to an ongoing investigation; i.e., there was no demonstration of an exigency. Here, on the other hand, a warrant was not required because it was demonstrated that Captain Chase had not yet concluded his immediate investigation into the cause and origin of the fire; i.e., there was an ongoing exigency.
“We therefore conclude that the facts and issues at hand are sufficiently distinguishable from those in Sutcliffe, such that the trial court misapplied Sutcliffe’s holding in granting Hommes’ motion to suppress.”
Appellate judges Mary Jane Trapp and Matt Lynch concurred. The case is cited State v. Hommes, 2021-Ohio-4568.