Russells Point man challenges evidence in fire death case

WAPAKONETA — The attorney for a man accused of being responsible for the death of a Wapakoneta man in what authorities said was a methamphetamine lab fire last year is seeking to dismiss evidence and obtain a change of venue, according to court documents.Robby B. Barnett, 52, of Russells Point, is charged with involuntary manslaughter, illegal manufacture of drugs, and assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs stemming from the May 4 death of Jeffrey A. Aldrich, 52.Gerald Siesel, Barnett's attorney, said in court filings that authorities lacked probable cause to garner a search warrant for Barnett's house and another one to take bodily fluids. Siesel also argued a search warrant for data from his cellphone invaded his privacy and also lacked probable cause.“Defendant states that while both searches were conducted pursuant to search warrants issued by a court official, there existed lack of probable cause to support issuance of search warrants in both instances,” Siesel wrote. “Moreover, the search of defendant's residence was conducted in a defective manner in that the actual physical search of the defendant's residence commenced prior to the issuance of the warrant and or service of the search warrant at the residence location.”Siesel contends investigators used data from Barnett's cellphone to track his movements after the fire and through historical data to follow his movements the day of the fire.The data obtained by the search warrant was “overbroad in scope, amounting to nothing more than a ‘fishing expedition' and as such was an unreasonable invasion of his expectation of privacy,” Siesel wrote.Siesel also said that searches at the scene of the fire nine days later amounted to a warrantless search and any evidence seized during that search should be excluded from further proceedings.A final motion seeks a change of venue for further proceedings.“This county has been saturated with the facts underlying this case to the extent that it is impossible for defendant to receive a fair trial before a jury,” Siesel wrote. “Only a trial in another county will allow for the empanelling of a jury composed of impartial persons who learn of the case through the evidence properly admitted during trial. Therefore, this court should grant a change of venue.”