WADSWORTH MUNICIPAL COURT, WHERE THE FLAWED PROCESS BEGINS

Perhaps it is time to start at the beginning of the flawed and unconstitutional judicial process that occurs daily in Medina County with a look at the Wadsworth Municipal Court.

Judge Stephen McIlvaine "presides" over the municipal court.  Like most of these "judges," McIlvaine was appointed to the bench by then-Governor George Voinovich, currently a sitting United States Senator.
Should you desire to follow this link http://wadsworthmunicipalcourt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=110&Itemid=158, you will go to the court website which sets out McIlvaine's sterling qualifications to sit in judgment, including being voted "Boss of the Year" in 1994 by that prestigious group, the Medina County Legal Secretaries Association.

Particularly impressive is the fact that McIlvaine is on the faculty of the Ohio Supreme Court Judicial College.  Form his stated resume, McIlvaine instructs (apparently rookie judges) on such matters as Preliminary Hearings and Initial Appearances.  Further, McIlvaine touts that he is on the Steering Committee which plans yearly educational programs for the Ohio Supreme Court.

This all really grand, except for the fact that McIlvaine has not a clue when it comes to Initial Appearances and Preliminary Hearings.  Perhaps he's learned all he knows from Dino Holman and Chris COLLIER.

Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3, found at http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/criminal/CriminalProcedure.pdf expressly states:

RULE 3. Complaint 

 The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense 

charged.  It shall also state the numerical designation of the applicable statute or ordinance.  It 

shall be made upon oath before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. 

[Effective:  July 1, 1973.] 

Now, what that means in plains language is that the complaining sheriff's deputy/police officer is required  to set out in  a criminal complaint a statement of essential facts which articulate his reasonable belief that the person arrested or to be arrested has committed a specific offense.  


You can personally go to the Clerk of Court, at Wadsworth Municipal Court, and ask to see any criminal file, perhaps even your own.  You will not find one criminal complaint filed with the Wadsworth Municipal Court that sets out the required statement of essential facts, essentially who allegedly did what.


Now, Rule 3 as currently constituted has only been in force for the past 37 years, since 1973.  It must take McIlvaine a little more time than most to catch up with the current state of the law.  Probably because he's to busy teaching other judges to do it his way, the wrong way!

You'd think that McIlvaine, being an instructor on the faculty of the Ohio Supreme Court as he is, would pick up on the minor fact that each and every criminal complaint and arrest warrant issued by the Wadsworth Municipal Court is defective and fatally flawed, wouldn't you?


What that means to you, the average citizen, is that if you have been prosecuted in Wadsworth for any criminal offense, your conviction may very well fall on the basis of a violation of Rule 3 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Simply put, a bad arrest (by virtue of a defective warrant) means the case should have been thrown out in a proper court by a proper judge.


Also, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a criminal complaint must be reviewed and assessed for probable cause by a neutral and detached judicial officer before an arrest warrant shall issue.  McIlvaine, the faculty instructor, never sees, much less reviews, criminal complaints and arrest warrants issued by the Wadsworth Municipal Court until a defendant makes a first appearance.  Sheriff's deputies simply file their criminal complaints with the Clerk of Court, without review for probable cause by a judicial officer.


You'd think that, McIlvaine, the expert on Initial Appearances and Preliminary Hearings, might just have an inkling that the law requires him to review those criminal complaints for probable cause before issuing arrest warrants, wouldn't you?


I suppose I can understand why McIlvaine, a judge of the municipal court, would not want to waste his precious personal time complying with the law and affording some "criminal" his/her constitutional rights.  After all, if he/she has been arrested, he/she must be guilty of something, even if not of the  charged offense.


Then, there is the matter of the matter of the jurat, or oath, that a sheriff's deputy is required, by law, to swear when filing a criminal complaint before the Wadsworth Municipal Court.  I suppose, by now, you have probably guessed that Medina County sheriff's deputies do not routinely swear to the truth of the criminal complaints, which are defective in the first place.  You, of course, are absolutely correct!


You'd think that since being appointed to the bench in 1997, McIlvaine would have caught on in the intervening 13 years that officers are required to swear an oath when presenting criminal complaints for review.

Perhaps McIlvaine is just a slow learner, but then again, if he never reviews criminal complaints for probable cause, he would certainly not be in a position to administer an oath to a sheriff's deputy whose criminal complaint doesn't contain any of the requisite essential facts (probable cause) anyway.


It is very important for your to know that in State v. Green, (1988), 48 Ohio App. 3d 121 (you can Google this case cite), the Court held, "Where a charging officer signs a (criminal) complaint but fails to execute the jurat (oath), such complaint is void and any conviction resulting therefrom is also void. (Crim R. 3 applied.)"

What that means to you is that if you have been convicted, either by plea or by jury, in a proceeding in the Wadsworth Municipal Court based upon an unsworn criminal complaint, YOUR CONVICTION CAN AND SHOULD BE VACATED! (see State v Green, as above)


Of course, the prosecutors and judges of Medina County don't want you to know about his little nuance in the law.  In fact, COLLIER has simply brushed this violation aside as if of no consequence! After all, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that no warrant shall issue but for probable cause upon oath or affirmation, HAS NO VALUE IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT SYSTEM!  Such is the state of the law in Medina County according to COLLIER.


Of course, reasonable minds would conclude, based upon the real state of the law outside Medina County, that if the arrest fails on account of an invalid, deficient, and void arrest warrant, then any evidence seized pursuant to an invalid arrest must fall as "fruits of the poisonous tree" as held by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio. Not COLLIER, no sirree!  After all, what does the U.S. Supreme Court know about the state of the law in Medina County?


If this wasn't such an affront to the law and your constitutional rights, this would be funny!  These people can't get the first thing right... or lawful!


Following, you will find examples of the typical defective criminal complaints routinely filed by sheriff's deputies in the Wadsworth Municipal Court, followed by a properly constructed criminal complaint.


This will give you something to go by in the event that you wish to take the time and trouble to visit the office of the Clerk of Court and request to look at your file.  


By the way, the same holds true for Dale Chase as well, judge of the Medina Municipal Court.  Officers file the same defective complaints and warrants, under the same procedures, there as well.


MUCH MORE TO COME ...