 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brungs10/25/2005
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{ } The Circleville Municipal Court found Troy A. Brungs guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ("OMVI"). Brungs appeals the trial court's decision to deny his motion to suppress. Brungs contends that without admissible field sobriety tests, the officer did not possess probable cause to arrest him. Because we find that admissible field sobriety tests are not required for a finding of probable cause, and because the officer observed other indicators of intoxication, we disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
I.
{ } Sergeant Aaron Quinn, of the Ohio State Highway Patrol, cited Brungs with OMVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d), and driving left of center in violation of R.C. 4511.25(B). Brungs pled not guilty and filed motions to suppress.
{ } Brungs' motions to suppress also included requests for dismissal and findings of law. Specifically, the motions requested the suppression, dismissal, or findings for the following: (1) dismissal of traffic citations and suppression of all evidence for lack of probable cause and an investigatory stop initiated without reasonable articulable suspicion; (2) suppression of the horizontal gaze nystagmus (hereinafter "HGN") field sobriety test for lack of probable cause; (3) suppression of the walk and turn field sobriety test for lack of probable cause; (4) suppression of the one-leg field sobriety test for lack of probable cause; (5) a finding that R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(B) is unconstitutional; (6) suppression of any evidence at trial on the field sobriety tests; (7) suppression of all statements made after arrest, but before the Trooper issued Miranda warnings; (8) suppression of BAC results for lack of probable cause; (9) suppression of all evidence for lack of probable cause; (10) a finding that expert testimony is necessary to verify the blood alcohol content (hereinafter "BAC") test results; and (11) a request for an ALS appeal for lack of reasonable suspicion of intoxication.
{ } At the hearing, Sgt. Quinn testified that he was on duty and in his police cruiser on the night of the arrest. While traveling westbound on St. Rt. 56 in Circleville, Ohio, he observed Brungs' vehicle traveling eastbound at a high rate of speed. At that time, Sgt. Quinn had not activated his radar, and Brungs' vehicle passed him before he could activate it. Sgt. Quinn began to follow the vehicle, and paced it for approximately two miles. During the pace, he visually observed the vehicle traveling at speeds between 65-70 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. speed zone. At some point during the pace, Sgt. Quinn activated his in-car camera, but a heavy rainstorm diminished the camera's visibility.
{ } As Sgt. Quinn paced the vehicle, he observed it drive left of center on two separate occasions. The first left of center violation occurred before Sgt. Quinn activated the camera. On the second violation, the camera was on, and Brungs crossed the centerline by more than the width of the vehicle tires . Sgt. Quinn testified that Brungs' left of center violations lasted approximately two seconds each time.
{ } Sgt. Quinn initiated a traffic stop by activating his overhead lights, but not the sirens. Brungs did not respond to the activated lights, and Sgt. Quinn activated the sirens. Brungs pulled over and Sgt. Quinn approached the vehicle. The sergeant observed a female passenger in the vehicle, and when Brungs rolled down the driver side window, he smelled the odor of alcohol. He also observed that Brungs' eyes were bloodshot. Brungs admitted to drinking some alcohol that evening. Sgt. Quinn admitted that Brungs did not display slurred speech
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|