 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Crotty6/13/2005
{ } Defendant-appellant, Michael Crotty, appeals his conviction in the Warren County Court for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(6) following the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
{ } On February 22, 2003, at approximately 1:10 a.m., Deputy Steve Bishop of the Warren County Sheriff's Office observed appellant drive a van left of center over the dividing double yellow lines several times in the span of approximately one mile while northbound on State Route 48 between U.S. 22 & 3 and Grandin Road in Hamilton Township. As appellant made a left turn from State Route 48 onto Grandin Road, the entire van initially entered into the left turn lane on Grandin rather than the proper lane of travel. Once appellant located the correct lane, he again crossed the double yellow line two more times on Grandin before Dep. Bishop initiated a traffic stop.
{ } Upon approaching the van on foot, Dep. Bishop immediately detected an odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle. Dep. Bishop asked for appellant's driver's license and proof of insurance as well as for the vehicle registration, then asked appellant to exit the van. Appellant was unsteady on his feet and placed his hand on the van to steady himself. Appellant admitted to consuming a couple of beers.
{ } Appellant then agreed to Dep. Bishop's request to perform some field sobriety tests. Dep. Bishop began with the portable breath test, obtaining a reading of .155 of one gram of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath. The officer next had appellant perform the heel-to-toe walk and one-leg stand test. Dep. Bishop determined appellant performed unsatisfactorily on these tests and arrested him for DUI.
{ } The officer transported appellant to a nearby Ohio State Highway Patrol post, where appellant agreed to take a breath test on a BAC Datamaster instrument. Appellant's reading was .194 of one gram of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath. Since this reading was above .17, the state charged appellant with R.C. 4511.19(A)(6). Appellant was also charged with a marked lanes violation pursuant to R.C. 4511.33.
{ } Appellant filed a very broad motion to suppress challenging, inter alia, virtually every aspect of the field sobriety and breath tests. At the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress, the state presented as witnesses the arresting officer and the senior BAC Datamaster machine operator who conducted the breath test on appellant. After reviewing the evidence, the trial court overruled appellant's motion. Appellant subsequently pled no contest and was convicted of DUI pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(6). The state dismissed the marked lanes violation.
{ } On appeal, appellant raises one assignment of error as follows:
{ } "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS."
{ } Within this assignment of error, appellant raises two issues for our review. First, appellant asserts the field sobriety tests were improperly done and should have been suppressed. Without the field sobriety tests, appellant believes there is insufficient probable cause to support his DUI arrest. Second, appellant asserts the state presented insufficient evidence that the breath test was properly done, requiring the trial court to suppress it.
{ } An appellate court's review of a ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Long (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332. When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of the trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual qu
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|