 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State of Ohio/City of Bowling Green v. Godwin6/24/2005
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{ } This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, following a no contest plea in the Bowling Green Municipal Court. Because we find that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress, we reverse.
{ } The facts of this case are as provided in the agreed statement submitted pursuant to Appellate Rule 9(D).
{ } On November 14, 2003 at 2:18 a.m. a Bowling Green Police Officer observed appellant, Bradley F. Godwin, exit a municipal parking lot by means of a driveway marked with "Wrong Way Do Not Enter" and "No Left/Right Turn" signs. The officer stopped appellant for failure to obey a traffic control device.
{ } Based upon observations following the traffic stop, the officer arrested appellant for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Appellant was also charged with failure to obey a traffic control device.
{ } Appellant moved to suppress evidence from the traffic stop, arguing that the traffic sign he allegedly disobeyed was improper and could not serve as a basis for a permissible stop.
{ } On July 29, 2004, the trial court held a hearing on appellant's motion to suppress and denied the motion in part. The trial court found that the Bowling Green Traffic Commission did not authorize the "Wrong Way Do Not Enter" and "No Left/Right Turn" signs. As a result, the court dismissed the offense of failure to obey a traffic control device. The trial court denied the remainder of the motion, finding that an officer's ignorance of a traffic control sign's authorization does not necessarily render an investigatory stop unreasonable.
{ } Following the trial court's ruling, appellant amended his plea to no contest and was found guilty of a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1). Appellant now appeals setting forth the following assignment of error:
{ } "The traffic stop of the appellant was unlawful for the reason the officer could not have had reasonable articulable suspicion appellant was violating the law where the traffic sign was a nullity."
{ } The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. The temporary detention of a person during a traffic stop is a seizure. State v. Vass, Mahoning App. No. 01CA 4, 2002 Ohio 6887, 12, citing Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648. There are two types of traffic stops, with a different constitutional standard applying to each. State v. Moeller (Oct. 23, 2000), Butler App. No. CA99-07-128.
{ } The first is the ordinary stop in which a police officer witnesses a violation of the traffic code and stops the motorist to issue a citation, a warning, or effect an arrest. For such a traffic stop, there must be probable cause. Id. Probable cause is a "reasonable ground for belief or guilt." State v. Moore (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 49, quoting Carroll v. U.S. (1925), 267 U.S. 132, 161.
{ } The second variety of a traffic stop is an investigatory stop. An investigatory stop is the motorized equivalent of a "Terry" stop, State v. Moeller, supra; see Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, and requires the Terry standard to be constitutionally acceptable: "articulable and reasonable suspicion" that an offense has been or is being committed. Delaware v. Prouse, supra at 663.
{ } In a motion to suppress, the state has the burden of proving, by at least a preponderance of the evidence, that a traffic stop was initiated with sufficient cause. Athens v. Wolf (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 237, 241. Consequently, when reviewing the factual findings of
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|