 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Nichols4/24/2002
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Defendant-Appellant Aaron J. Nichols has appealed from judgments of the Wayne County Municipal Court that denied his motion to suppress and found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19. This Court affirms.
I.
On March 17, 2000, Appellant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and (3) ("DUI"). Appellant subsequently filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest Appellant. The motion also challenged the state's ability to demonstrate compliance with Department of Health regulations with respect to the machine used to measure Appellant's breath alcohol content. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress.
Appellant thereafter entered a plea of no contest to the DUI charges, was found guilty by the trial court, and was sentenced to one year in jail, a $750.00 fine, and a ten-year license suspension. Appellant has timely appealed, asserting two assignments of error.
II.
An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress de novo. State v. Bing (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 444, 448, citing Ornelas v. United States (1996), 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 920. However, the appellate court reviews the facts only for clear error, giving due weight to the trial court as to the inferences drawn from those facts. Id. Accordingly, this Court accepts the factual determinations of the trial court if they are supported by competent, credible evidence, and without deference to the trial court's conclusions will determine "whether, as a matter of law, the facts meet the appropriate legal standard." State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96.
Assignment of Error Number One
The trial court erred in finding that the State of Ohio had produced sufficient evidence to establish that the officer had probable cause to arrest Appellant for driving under the influence .
In his first assignment of error, Appellant has argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence . Specifically, Appellant has argued that the state failed to establish that his alcohol consumption impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle.
The Ohio Supreme Court has stated:
In determining whether the police had probable cause to arrest an individual for DUI, we consider whether, at the moment of arrest, the police had sufficient information, derived from a reasonably trustworthy source of facts and circumstances, sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence . In making this determination, [a court] will examine the "totality" of facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. (Citations omitted.) State v. Homan (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427.
Appellant has argued that Appellant was not engaged in any erratic driving "normally associated with impaired driving," and was not staggering or slurring his speech during his encounter with the police.
The first witness who testified at the hearing on Appellant's motion to suppress was Trooper Nakia James Hendrix. Trooper Hendrix testified that on March 17, 2000, he was traveling westbound on County Road 150 when he
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|