 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stamper4/10/1995
of exegetical speculation.' [United States v. Black (C.A.7, 1982), 675 F.2d 129, 137.] `It must be rare indeed that a officer observes behavior consistent only with guilt and incapable of innocent interpretation.' United States v. Price (C.A.2, 1979), 599 F.2d 494, 502. Rather, our previous pronouncements stand for the proposition that acts wholly consistent with innocent behavior are insufficient, standing alone, to provide an articulable basis for reasonable suspicion; and that reasonable suspicion must be based upon additionally articulated acts of criminal activity sufficient to support the requisite `minimal level of objective justification.' United States v. Sokolow (1989), 490 U.S. 1, 7 [109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1]." (Emphasis sic.) Mentor v. Deniham (Dec. 31, 1991), Lake App. No. 91-L-050, unreported, at 6-7, 1991 WL 280004.
In relation to the fishtailing and the driving left of center, this court agrees that in some instances these actions could be attributed to hazardous road conditions, instead of the influence of alcohol. The same could also be said of appellant's action in allowing his vehicle to drift off the side of the road momentarily.
However, as part of his testimony at the suppression hearing, the arresting officer was able to articulate reasons why he believed appellant's actions were attributable to erratic driving. As to the fishtailing, the officer testified that the instances he saw firsthand appeared to be caused by the fact that appellant was accelerating too quickly from a stop. As to the driving left of center, the officer stated that even though Centennial Road was covered with snow, the boundaries or edges of the road were easily discernible. He further testified that in following appellant, he did not experience any difficulties in driving on the right side of the road.
We note, parenthetically, that driving at a speed and in a manner that takes existing road conditions into account is the responsibility of every driver under Ohio law. Thus, observing a driver who commits a series of individuallsminor traffic infractions or irregularities, potentially explainable by weather conditions, could lead the observer to reasonably conclude that the driver was either oblivious to the weather conditions or that the driver was incapable of adjusting to them. Either conclusion would supply a reasonable belief for a stop.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has expressly held that in reviewing a determination as to the reasonableness of a stop, an appellate court must give deference to the officer's training and experience. State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 565 N.E.2d 1271. Given this standard of review, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the officer's explanation to be more credible than that of appellant.
In relation to the fact that appellant drove off the right side of the road when the officer first saw his vehicle, appellant contends that this fact alone was insufficient to justify the stop. In support of this argument, appellant cites State v. Gullett (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 138, 604 N.E.2d 176, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that in the absence of any other evidence indicating that the driver was impaired, the crossing of an edge line on one occasion was not sufficient to justify a stop based upon a suspicion of drunk driving .
In interpreting Gullett, this court has succinctly stated that the holding in that case simply is not controlling when there are other instances of erratic driving. State v. Burwell (June 30, 1994), Lake App. No. 93-L-122, unreported, 1994 WL 321163. That is clearly the case in the instant appeal. Again, in addition to seeing the ve
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|