 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Donovan3/7/2003
Rendered on the 7th day of March, 2003.
. This case presents two issues. The first is whether the trial court erred when it found that the warrantless stop of Appellant's vehicle was justified by probable cause of a marked lanes violation. The second issue is whether the trial court erred when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of field sobriety tests that formed a basis for Defendant's subsequent arrest on a DUI charge because the trial court failed to follow the strict compliance rule of State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 2000-Ohio-212.
. We find no error in the trial court's decision that the stop of Defendant's vehicle was justified. However, we find that the trial court erred when it applied and followed the substantial compliance test that Homan rejected to find that evidence of the field sobriety tests was admissible. Accordingly, we shall reverse Defendant's conviction and remand for further proceedings on the issue.
. Defendant was operating his vehicle westbound on Interstate Route 70 on December 11, 2001, at approximately 4:14 a.m., when he was stopped by Sgt. Joe Luebbers of the Ohio Highway Patrol. Sgt. Leubbers later testified that he observed Defendant commit a marked lanes violation and stopped Defendant in order to cite him on that charge.
. When he engaged Defendant in conversation, Sgt. Luebbers suspected that Defendant might be under the influence of alcohol. He noted that Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and that his breath had a strong odor of alcohol. (T. 11). Sgt. Luebbers asked Defendant if he'd had anything to drink. Defendant said he'd had "a couple." (T. 52).
. Sgt. Luebbers required Defendant to submit to three field sobriety tests: the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, a one-leg stand test, and a walk-and-turn test. Based on the result of those tests, Sgt. Luebbers concluded that Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and he arrested Defendant on that charge.
. Defendant filed a Crim.R. 12(C) motion to suppress evidence. The motion had two branches. The first challenged the stop of Defendant's vehicle. The second challenged the probable cause for his arrest on the DUI charge, and specifically the admissibility of the results of field sobriety tests that Sgt. Luebbers performed. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion and thereafter denied it.
. Defendant changed his plea from not guilty to no contest. The trial court accepted the plea, entered a judgment of conviction, and imposed a sentence pursuant to law. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
. "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO PULL APPELLANT OVER DESPITE THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEING NON-SPECIFIC TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VEHICLE CROSSING THE LANE MARKINGS."
. A law enforcement officer's stop of a motor vehicle is a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and when performed without benefit of a warrant is illegal absent some justification which in the law renders it reasonable and therefore legal. When a Defendant's motion to suppress challenges a warrantless stop, the state has the burden to show the necessary justification. If the state fails to meet that burden, the court must suppress all evidence gathered from and as a result of the stop.
. The State sought to justify the warrantless stop of Defendant's vehicle on the basis of the rule announced in Whren v. United States (1996), 517 U.S. 806, 116. S.Ct. 1769, and Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3. That rule holds:
. "Where a police officer stops a vehicle based on probable
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|