" State v. Russell (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 414, 416. {¶ 26} The instant case is factually similar to State v. Taylor (2007), 174 Ohio App.3d 477, in which the affidavit supporting the search warrant in question contained a misstatement which the affiant explained was a "clerical error," because he used a template with boilerplate language which he did not change. The First District Court of Appeals of Ohio held the following:

Franks at 155-156. {¶ 39} The court in State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066, concisely summarized the analysis to be conducted in examining a challenge to a search warrant on the basis that it contained false statements. "An affidavit supporting a search warrant enjoys a presumption of validity.

Decided June 4, 2008. CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-070026, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and James Michael Keeling, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

June 4, 2008. Hamilton App. No. C-070026, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066. Certified question recognized and answered in the affirmative and judgment affirmed.

'But we must independently determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.'" State v. Thompson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200388, 2021-Ohio-3184, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066, 882 N.E.2d 945, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.).

'But we must independently determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.'" State v. Thompson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200388, 2021-Ohio-3184, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066, 882 N.E.2d 945, ¶ 11 (1st Dist).

State v. Thompson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200388, 2021-Ohio-3184, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066, 882 N.E.2d 945, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.).

{¶9} An appeal of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress" 'presents a mixed question of law and fact.'" State v. Thompson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200388, 2021-Ohio-3184, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066, 882 N.E.2d 945, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). The parties agree that Lewis exited from the car and walked to the townhouse before officers arrested Dukes, smelled the marijuana, and searched the car.

, I would overrule Jones's second assignment of error. See State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d 640 (1989); State v. Martin, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200067, 2021-Ohio-2599, ¶ 11; State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066, 882 N.E.2d 945, ¶ 15-17 (1st Dist); State v. Jordan, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060336, 2007-Ohio-3449, ¶ 9.

But we must independently determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.'" State v. Thompson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200388, 2021-Ohio-3184, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066, 882 N.E.2d 945, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). We review de novo" 'whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.'" Id., quoting State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8.