State says search valid in Dayton psychologist’s child porn case

Gregory Ramey
Gregory Ramey

A prosecutor argued this week in court filings that evidence collected by investigators should be allowed in the child pornography case against a Dayton child psychologist.

Jennifer Reed, a special prosecuting attorney from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, filed a response to a motion from the defense team of Gregory Ramey, attempting to suppress potential evidence. The defense argued that search warrants allowing investigators to search an AOL account and Ramey’s home lacked probable cause and were too general. They also said the affidavit lacked a factual basis to support an issuance of a warrant.

Ramey is facing charges of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, pandering obscenity involving a minor, attempted pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor and tampering with evidence in Greene County Common Pleas Court. He faces 145 counts overall and has pleaded not guilty. His attorney, Jon Paul Rion, has said that the images Ramey had were not pornographic.

ExploreDayton psychologist accused in child porn case withdraws bond change request

Ramey was a longtime employee of Dayton Children’s Hospital and served as executive director for pediatric mental health resources at Dayton Children’s. Ramey’s employment was terminated in August 2019, the hospital said.

A motion to suppress hearing was set to be heard on Friday in Greene County court, but that hearing was canceled and a next court date had not been set.

However, in a response to the motion filed this week in the case, Reed said that the warrants investigators used were legal and the court should allow evidence collected to be used.

“Defendant’s motion is without merit and should be denied,” she said in the response. “The search warrants for defendant’s AOL account, his home, and his iPhone were supported by probable cause and sufficient particularity and contained facts that were sufficiently timely. Defendant’s motion should be overruled, and none of the evidence mentioned in the defendant’s motion should be suppressed.”

The motion also says that investigators operated in good faith and, even if the search warrants lacked probable cause, an exception applies.

“In this case, Beavercreek Police Detective Brad Piasecki and BCI Special Agent Justin Root had reason to believe that the warrants were supported by probable cause, given that they were signed by a judge. There would be no deterrent effect to invalidating the searches when the officers involved in the searches were relying on valid warrants obtained pursuant to Criminal Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment.”

ExploreJury trial date set in Dayton Children’s doctor child pornography case

A five-day jury trial in the case is set to begin on Nov. 16, according to court documents, but it is unclear if that will take place or be continued.

In Other News