 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Powers10/28/2005
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{ } Defendant-appellant, William G. Powers, appeals the July 8, 2004 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas which, following a no contest plea to driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and (G)(1)(d), a fourth degree felony, sentenced appellant to three years of community control and a three-year driver's license suspension. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's decision.
{ } On March 5, 2004, appellant was indicted on one count of driving while under the influence of alcohol, a fourth degree felony. Appellant entered a not guilty plea. On May 19, 2004, appellant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop and subsequent arrest on the grounds that there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop appellant's vehicle, there was no probable cause to arrest appellant, and that appellant did not refuse to submit to an alcohol test. The state opposed the motion and, on June 9, 2004, following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, appellant pled no contest to driving while under the influence of alcohol and the court found him guilty. Appellant now appeals and sets forth the following two assignments of error:
{ } "First Assignment of Error
{ } "The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant by denying his motion to suppress, as the evidence against him was obtained in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights secured by the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 14, of the Ohio Constitution.
{ } "Second Assignment of Error
{ } "Trooper Bryant lacked probable cause to arrest appellant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. §4511.19(A)(1)."
{ } In his first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress where the evidence at the suppression hearing demonstrated that the officer lacked probable cause to stop appellant's vehicle.
Specifically, appellant argues that his act of crossing the center line was not sufficient to justify the stop.
{ } We note that when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Guysinger (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 592, 594. An appellate court must independently determine, without deferring to a trial court's conclusions, whether, as a matter of law, the facts meet the applicable standard. State v. Klein (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 486, 488.
{ } The testimony presented at the May 19, 2005 suppression hearing provides that on February 1, 2004, at approximately 2:41 a.m., Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper, Justin Bryant, was traveling behind appellant and observed him "straighten out an S curve" or drive down the center of the marked double yellow lines. Trooper Bryant testified that appellant was left of the center line for the entire curve which was approximately 75 yards in length. Bryant testified that the roads were dry.
{ } Bryant testified that once he got though the curve he activated his overhead lights; this automatically activated the video camera mounted in the patrol vehicle. Bryant manually turned on his microphone as he approached the vehicle. Bryant testified that he explained to appellant why he stopped him and that appellant's response was that he did not see any headlights ahead and that is why he drove down the middle.
{ } Bryant testified that while speaking with appellant, he detected a strong odor of al
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|