 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hill6/24/2005
we consider an appeal of a ruling on a motion to suppress we review the trial court's findings of fact only for clear error and give due weight to inferences the trial judge drew from the facts. We must accept the trial court's factual determinations when they are supported by competent and credible evidence. We determine only whether the findings of fact were against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Bokesch, 11th Dist. No. 2001-P-0026, 2002-Ohio-2118, -13. We review the trial court's application of the law to those facts de novo and independently determine whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard. Id.
{ } Hill first argues the results of the field sobriety tests were unreliable because of the way they were conducted. Specifically, Hill contends the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg-stand were not reliable because he performed them on a gravel surface while barefoot. Hill also contends Hulewat violated policy by failing to have Hill perform the tests in view of the video camera when it was practical to do so. Finally, Hill contends the results of the HGN test were unreliable because it was administered with Hill facing the sun and while he was standing between the two cars. Hill contends performing the test in this manner violated Ohio State Highway Patrol policy. Hill's arguments are unpersuasive.
{ } While Hulewat testified Hill was barefoot while performing the field sobriety tests, he also testified he had Hill perform the tests on a paved driveway and he did not observe any gravel on the surface that would have interfered with Hill's performance of the tests. There is no evidence Hill complained of difficulty performing the tests due to gravel contemporaneous with his performance of the tests (Hill testified at the suppression hearing.)
{ } With respect to the HGN test, Hulewat testified he had Hill perform this test while seated in Hulewat's patrol car.
{ } Hill does not contend the field sobriety tests were not performed in compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards, but only internal Ohio Highway Patrol policies.
{ } While there were conflicts between Hill and Hulewat's testimony, we conclude the trial court's findings of fact were supported by competent, credible evidence, and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court properly applied the law to those facts and found there was probable cause to support the arrest.
{ } Appellant's second assignment of error is without merit.
{ } For the foregoing reasons, appellant's assignments of error are without merit and the judgment of the Chardon Municipal Court is affirmed.
DONALD R. FORD, P.J., DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concur.
|