 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Brungs10/25/2005
BR>
{ } As previously mentioned, the Homan Court found sufficient probable cause for an arrest where the defendant admitted to drinking, and exhibited red and glassy eyes, erratic driving, and an odor of alcohol emanating from his person. Id. at 427. Here, Brungs admitted to drinking , committed at least three traffic violations, had an odor of alcohol emanating from his person, and exhibited bloodshot eyes. Regarding the odor of alcohol, Sgt. Quinn testified that he smelled the odor both before and after Brungs exited the vehicle, thus eliminating any possibility that the odor only emanated from Brungs' female passenger.
{ } Brungs argues that without evidence that he had difficulty with his motor coordination and speech skills we cannot find probable cause for his arrest. However, the law does not provide a bright line rule for finding probable cause. Instead, we must rely on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. Homan, supra at 427. We conclude that the totality of the facts and circumstances as articulated by Sgt. Quinn at the suppression hearing constitute a sufficient basis on which to find that probable cause existed. Homan, at 427. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
IV.
{ } In conclusion, we find that when an officer observes a traffic violation he possesses probable cause to effect a stop. If, after making a probable cause stop for a traffic violation, the officer smells the odor of alcohol emanating from the driver and observes other indicators of intoxication, such as bloodshot eyes, he possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion on which to conduct a further investigatory stop. Finally, the arresting officer can possess probable cause to arrest for OMVI even when the field sobriety tests are deemed inadmissible or not considered by the trial court, provided that the totality of the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that the driver operated the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and that costs herein be taxed to the appellant.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Circleville Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as the date of this Entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. and McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment Only.
Roger L. Kline, Judge
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.
|
|