 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Phillips3/15/2002
t that not every crossing of the center line is unlawful - that under R.C. 4511.33(A), the State must show either that it was not practicable for the driver to remain within the lane of traffic, or that the driver crossed the line without first determining that it was safe to do so.
{ } In our view, it is unnecessary to determine whether the police had a sufficient basis to stop Phillips for a traffic violation other than DUI. The propriety of a traffic stop must be determined from the totality of the circumstances confronting the officer. Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 295, 299, 302. In the case before us, Barber had received a report from the manager of the car wash that Phillips appeared intoxicated. The manager of the car wash was both an identified person, and a person who apparently had an opportunity to observe Phillips' demeanor. In addition, Barber had his own observation of Phillips, a little bit later, at Wallaby's, where he detected glassy eyes, slurred speech, and the odor of alcohol. Finally, he observed somewhat erratic driving. This included stopping well past a marked stop bar, weaving within a lane of travel, two wide turns, and a crossing of the yellow center line. We are satisfied that the combination of all of these circumstances gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Phillips was driving while under the influence of alcohol.
{ } Phillips' sole assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{ } Phillips' sole assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
BROGAN and YOUNG, JJ., concur.
|