 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Eddy12/7/1999
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
Appellant State of Ohio appeals a judgment of the Ashland Municipal Court granting appellee James E. Eddy, Jr's., motion to suppress:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
I. THE JUDGMENT ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE WAS NOT BASED UPON THE PROPER STANDARD OF PROOF.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE OFFICER HAD AN ARTICULABLE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STOP OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE.
III. THE JUDGMENT ORDER OF THE COURT IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
At 2: 12 a.m. on May 30,1999, Trooper A.S. Norman of the Ohio State Highway Patrol was on patrol in the Village of Loudonville. She passed a blue pickup truck with no front license plate. As she passed the vehicle, Trooper Norman looked in her rear view mirror, and did not see a plate on the rear of the truck. She turned and followed the vehicle. Officer Norman noted that a temporary license tag was placed in the rear window of the vehicle, but she could not discern the numbers on the temporary tag. Officer Norman then stopped the vehicle, which was driven by appellee.
After getting out of her car, Trooper Norman noticed that the tag was located on the rear of the truck, in the left back portion of the cap. When she was approximately one to two feet from the vehicle, Trooper Norman could clearly see the temporary tag. She approached the driver to issue him a warning for violating R.C. 4503.21. Upon approaching the vehicle, she detected an odor of alcohol, and eventually appellant was arrested for driving under the influence . Appellee moved to suppress all evidence leading to his arrest on the basis that the Trooper did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify stopping the vehicle.
He argued that the temporary tag was not obscured in violation of R.C. 4503.21, as she was able to read the temporary tag upon approaching the window. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding that because the officer could read the temporary tag while outside the vehicle, the stop was not valid. The State filed a notice of appeal from this judgment, including the required certification that the granting of appellee's motion to suppress has so weakened the State's case that no reasonable possibility of prosecution exists.
I.
Appellant argues that the court applied the wrong legal standard, as in the final paragraph of the court's judgment, the court finds that the officer lacked probable cause to stop the defendant's vehicle. While the proper standard is whether the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify stopping the vehicle, the court's misstatement of the standard in the judgment is harmless error. During the court's discussion of the law in the opinion, the court repeatedly refers to a reasonable and articulable suspicion for stopping the car. The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
Appellant argues that the court erred as a matter of law in granting the motion to suppress, as the officer had a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify stopping the motor vehicle. In State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 59, the Ohio Supreme Court held that when a police officer stopped a motor vehicle displaying neither the front nor rear license plates, but upon approaching the vehicle observed a temporary tag through the rear windshield, the officer could not detain the driver further to determine the validity of his driver's license absent some specific and artic
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|