 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Willoughby Hills v. Auletta9/30/2005
{ } The following is an accelerated calendar appeal submitted on the briefs of the parties. Appellant, Vincent Auletta, appeals from a judgment entry of the Willoughby Municipal Court, denying his motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we affirm.
{ } On June 14, 2004, Willoughby Hills Police Officer, Ronald S. Parmertor ("Officer Parmertor"), issued a traffic citation to appellant for driving under the influence ("DUI"), in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), and driving without a license, in violation of R.C. 335.06. At his initial appearance before the Willoughby Municipal Court, appellant pleaded not guilty to the foregoing charges.
{ } Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence surrounding Officer Parmertor's traffic stop, which resulted in the citation. The motion argued that the evidence should be suppressed because Officer Parmertor did not have probable cause to initiate the stop and because the stop was pretextual.
{ } The municipal court conducted a hearing on appellant's motion to suppress. Officer Parmertor was the sole witness to testify. He stated that on the evening of June 14, 2004, he was dispatched to the intersection of Loreto Road and Chardon Road, in Lake County, Ohio. Officer Parmertor was dispatched to the intersection to re-rout traffic from Chardon Road, as the road was closed due to a fire caused by a damaged electrical transformer. Officer Parmertor testified that he had initially set out traffic cones to re-rout traffic. However, after multiple vehicles drove past the cones, he personally stopped all vehicles to advise them of the road closing and assist drivers with re-routing directions.
{ } At approximately 8:20 p.m., a Cleveland Metroparks Ranger's vehicle approached the intersection. Appellant's vehicle was directly behind the ranger's vehicle. Officer Parmertor testified that when he stopped and spoke with the ranger, the ranger stated that appellant's vehicle had been tailgating his vehicle.
{ } Officer Parmertor further testified that he initially stopped appellant's vehicle to provide information regarding the road closing and to provide an alternate route. However, upon the initial stop, he detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from appellant's vehicle and that appellant's eyes were bloodshot and glossy. Officer Parmertor asked appellant whether he had been drinking, and appellant stated that he had consumed three beers. Based upon these circumstances, Officer Parmertor directed appellant to pull his car to the side of the road. Appellant complied.
{ } Officer Parmertor stated that once appellant had pulled to the side of the road, he conducted field sobriety tests. Appellant performed the field sobriety tests poorly and was unable to provide a driver's license. Ultimately, Officer Parmertor issued a traffic citation for DUI and driving without a license.
{ } Following the hearing, the municipal court denied appellant's motion to suppress. The court found that Officer Parmertor's traffic stop was proper. Moreover, the court determined that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated Officer Parmertor's "arrest of [appellant] was based on probable cause."
{ } Subsequent to the court's denial of his motion to suppress, appellant pleaded no contest to the citations. Accordingly, the municipal court found appellant guilty of DUI and driving without a license, and suspended his license for one hundred eighty days, with certain driving privileges after fifteen days.
{ } From this judgment, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and now sets forth the following assignment of error for our consideration:
{ } "The trial
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|