 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Feasel3/29/1988
EVANS, J.
This is an appeal by defendant, David A. Feasel, from a judgment by the Municipal Court of Tiffin, Ohio, overruling defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence.
The pertinent facts are as follows:
At approximately 2:45 a.m. on March 2, 1986, Officer William Eckelberry and Dispatcher Joseph Rohrbach were traveling west on County Road 591 in a police cruiser when, according to their testimony, they observed an eastbound vehicle, driven by defendant, momentarily cross over into the westbound lane as defendant attempted to negotiate a curve. Officer Eckelberry turned his vehicle around, and after following the defendant's vehicle for a short distance, saw the automobile go off the right side of the roadway. At this point, Officer Eckelberry stopped the defendant's vehicle and, after detecting an odor of alcohol on defendant's breath, administered some field sobriety tests which defendant failed. Officer Eckelberry also noted that defendant had bloodshot eyes and seemed shaky. After defendant failed the field sobriety tests, Officer Eckelberry placed him under arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol and transported him to the Tiffin Police Department where he was read his Miranda warnings. Subsequently, without assistance of counsel, defendant answered questions on the interview sheets and took the breathalyzer test which resulted in a reading of .105.
On March 14, 1986, defendant filed a motion to suppress the following evidence claiming that it was illegally seized:
"1. Any and all statements made by defendant,
"2. Results of physical dexterity tests,
"3. Any communications or forms of communication made by defendant between the time the arresting officers took defendant into custody in the field, told him he had to go to the sheriff's office, and until he was advised of his constitutional rights,
"4. Any testimony of officers as to defendant's behavior, physical conduct, movements, appearance, breath odor, and all events involving defendant."
The municipal court held a hearing on defendant's motion on May 1, 1986, found that the police officers had probable cause to stop and arrest defendant, and overruled defendant's motion to suppress. It is from this judgment that defendant appeals.
Defendant has asserted only one assignment of error which is as follows:
"The trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress evidence."
Defendant has argued that the trial court should have sustained his motion to suppress because Officer Eckelberry did not have probable cause to arrest defendant. We do not agree. Officer Eckelberry and Dispatcher Rohrbach testified that they observed defendant improperly change lanes and go off the side of the roadway, that defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes and suffered from impaired coordination. The courts have found that evidence such as this is sufficient to establish probable cause upon which to arrest a person for driving while under the influence of alcohol. See State v. Burger (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 231, 515 N.E.2d 640; State v. Van Fossen (1984), 19 Ohio App.3d 281, 19 OBR 452, 484 N.E.2d 191; and State v. Taylor (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 197, 3 OBR 224, 444 N.E.2d 481.
Defendant also contends that any evidence regarding his communications with police officers while he was in custody in the field and during the time of arrest until he received his Miranda warnings should be suppressed.
There is no question that defendant was entitled to have his Miranda warnings read to him even though he was arrested for a misdemean
Page 1 2 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|