 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Westlake v. Kaplysh1/16/1997
PER CURIAM
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded.
Plaintiff-appellant City of Westlake appeals from an order of the Rocky River Municipal Court granting defendant-appellee William Kaplysh's motion to suppress evidence.
Kaplysh was charged on May 24, 1996, with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Westlake Codified Ordinance Section 333.01(A)(1). Kaplysh was initially stopped for failing to dim his high beam headlights for oncoming traffic. During the stop, the officer discovered defendant had been drinking alcohol. Kaplysh failed field sobriety tests and subsequently refused to take a breath alcohol test.
Kaplysh pleaded not guilty to the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. Contending that the traffic stop was unlawful, Kaplysh thereafter filed a motion to suppress evidence. The matter proceeded to a hearing in the municipal court on June 13, 1996.
Westlake police officer Thomas Cummings was the sole witness to testify during the motion to suppress. Officer Cummings testified that he was driving a police cruiser on routine patrol at approximately 2:30 a.m. on May 24, 1996. Driving westbound on Detroit Road, he stopped his car behind another vehicle at a red traffic light at the intersection of Detroit Road and Bradley Road.
Officer Cummings observed a vehicle driven by defendant approaching eastbound on Detroit Road. Defendant's vehicle approached the intersection with its high beams on and stopped behind another vehicle. After the traffic light changed from red to green, defendant proceeded through the intersection and switched to low beam headlights. The record does not specify the exact time and relative position of the cars. Officer Cummings testified that he observed the bright headlights on defendant's vehicle for at least a minute and had to squint because of the intensity of the light.
Officer Cummings concluded that defendant violated a Westlake ordinance requiring drivers to dim their headlights when they approach oncoming vehicles. As a result, Officer Cummings turned his vehicle around and stopped defendant. When he spoke with defendant, Officer Cummings noticed a strong odor of alcoholic beverage. Defendant subsequently failed a series of field sobriety tests and was arrested for driving while under the influence.
Defendant argued that the Westlake police did not have sufficient grounds to stop him and that all evidence obtained by the police following the stop should be suppressed. In an order journalized June 18, 1996, the municipal court granted defendant's motion to suppress.
Westlake timely appeals raising the following two assignments of error:
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY IMPROPERLY APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS AND BY FAILING TO UPHOLD THE TRAFFIC STOP UPON EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION OF WESTLAKE CODE SECTION 337.14 (O.R.C. 4513.15).
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND FAILING TO SUSTAIN THE POLICE OFFICER'S REASONABLE ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO EFFECT A TRAFFIC STOP. These assignments are well taken.
Westlake argues the municipal court improperly granted defendant's motion to suppress. Westlake argues the record shows Officer Cummings properly stopped defendant for violating Westlake Codified Ordinance Section 337.14, which provides as follows:
Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated on a roadway or shoulder adjacent thereto during the times specified in Section 337.02, the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|