OH Court of Appeals Affirms Township’s Injunctive Relief Regarding Property Owner’s Agricultural Zoning Violation

This post was authored by Patrick Faivre, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Touro Law Center

This case stems from the issuance and execution of two search warrants at Defendant-Appellant, Enoch Simon’s (“Simon”) property, located in Blanchard Township, Ohio (“Blanchard”), and zoned for agricultural use.

In 2019, the Blanchard zoning inspector, a Blanchard Trustee and a non-attorney employee of the Hardin County Prosecutor’s Office obtained a search warrant for Simon’s property because pictures reflecting the condition of Simon’s property revealed possible zoning violations. The trial court granted Blanchard’s warrant request. Blanchard executed the search warrant without law enforcement and returned with a statement of observations regarding the condition of the property. In response, Simon removed all property being identified as “in violation” of the zoning code.

The following year, Simon contacted the zoning inspector when he began to erect greenhouses and a “non-farming” fence on the property to determine if Blanchard required a permit for the same. Simon was advised that the zoning code did not currently reference any regulations about fences. However, nine months later, Simon received a letter from Blanchard regarding the adoption of an amended zoning resolution that applied to both the fencing and buildings Simon was putting up even though Simon was not currently in violation of the zoning code.

 Blanchard’s concerns that Simon was using the property in a manner inconsistent with the property’s agricultural designation persisted, and in 2021, Blanchard expressed concerns that the new structures were not being used for agricultural purposes. Rather, they were being used to “store junk”. Thus, Blanchard sought to obtain a second search warrant. The basis for the warrant was Blanchard’s zoning official’s observations of garbage, debris, excessive and overgrown vegetation, and structures that were partially finished over a six-month period of time. This time the search warrant was granted and executed by the Blanchard zoning official, the same non-attorney employee of the Hardin County Prosecutor’s Office and law enforcement. The search confirmed there was excessive overgrown vegetation, as well as debris, numerous brush, and wood piles with overgrown weeds, and at least three junk motor vehicles being stored on the property. The partially built structures were also being used to store junk.

Blanchard then filed a court action for injunctive relief against Simon, and a request that the property be declared a nuisance. Simon filed counterclaims and a third-party complaint against Blanchard for civil rights violations. Simon also argued for the evidence used to obtain the warrants to be suppressed; however, the court found the evidence admissible through the open-fields doctrine.

Blanchard then filed for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue of material fact existed proving that Simon’s constitutional rights were violated due to the validity of the search warrants. The trial court granted Blanchard’s motion, holding that the warrants were properly executed, and that Simon did not provide any facts or law to prove his civil rights had been violated.

On appeal, Simon argued that (i) the two search warrants were not properly authorized and violated his constitutional rights against governmental intrusion onto private property, and (ii) the Court erred in applying the “open fields” doctrine.

With respect to the warrants, the appellate court did not find that Simon’s constitutional rights had been violated. Instead, the appellate court held that the warrants were invalid because Ohio law requires that all search warrants be requested by either a prosecuting attorney or a law enforcement officer, and then directed to a law enforcement officer for execution. Here, the first warrant was executed by the Blanchard zoning inspector, Blanchard trustee, and non-attorney employee of the Hardin County Prosecutor’s Office. None of which fit the above criteria because they were neither law enforcement nor a prosecuting attorney.

Nonetheless, the appellate court held that the evidence obtained pursuant to the defective search warrant was not in violation of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution because the exclusionary rule does not apply when evidence is obtained in good faith reliance on that which is presumed to be a validly issued warrant. Furthermore, the deficiencies in the two search warrants were not fundamental violations. Nor was Simon prejudiced by the search. The appellate court also found that when considering the totality of the circumstances, the search warrants reasonably related to Blanchard’s particularized need to access Simon’s property to enforce its zoning regulations.

Since the appellate court had already concluded that there were no constitutional violations regarding the search warrants, the appellate court did not address the open-fields doctrine. Instead, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to Simon’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Board of Trustees Blanchard Township v. Simon, et. al. 214 N.E.3d 1255 (2023)