Ronald Dewayne Pitts v. Ohio

Whether a Search Warrant Affidavit that failed to set forth probable cause can survive meaningful scrutiny where, as here, the Affiant failed to: vouch for the credibility and reliability of her undisclosed sources; reveal, therein, that these people were strangers; document her contacts with these people; and disclose such failures in the Search Warrant Affidavit.

Given Franks v. Delaware, makes it clear that if the trial Court is persuaded that an Affiant’s sources should not be revealed, and where the contention is made that they were non-existent, should the prosecution have been ordered to produce these people – at least, in camera? This is especially so when the request is actually made that this be done.

Given the Court of Appeals actually determined petitioner “was charged with trafficking based [solely] upon the quantity of drugs . . . found in the various residences. [Indeed he] was not charged with trafficking for any of the individual transactions supposedly observed”: can the prosecutor nonetheless state in his summation, and otherwise inform the Jury, that events supposedly observed by her (Detective Janowiecki), indeed “in advance of the dates when the searches were made, be regarded as ‘drug trafficking’.” (Tr., 1078.)

Given the fact that the accused was convicted as charged in the Indictment, solely for being in possession of the contraband found inside his home, indeed on the precise dates: can the prosecution nonetheless argue (with impunity) that events