 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Snyder11/20/2001
This is an appeal from the denial by the Ironton Municipal Court of Defendant-Appellant Marla S. Snyder's motion to suppress all evidence resulting from her arrest for driving while intoxicated.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion because there was no probable cause for her arrest. Specifically, she argues that the field-sobriety tests were not administered in strict compliance with the standards set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
We find appellant's argument to be without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. The Proceedings Below
In the early morning of August 29, 2000, Defendant-Appellant Marla S. Snyder was stopped for speeding by Trooper D.S. Salyers of the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
After approaching appellant in her vehicle and speaking with her, Trooper Salyers detected a mild odor of alcohol on her breath. When asked, appellant admitted that she had consumed two cans or bottles of beer.
Suspecting that she might be intoxicated, Trooper Salyers then requested appellant to perform field-sobriety tests. Appellant consented, and three standardized tests were administered: the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test. Trooper Salyers concluded that appellant had failed all three of these tests.
Based on the results of these tests, the smell of alcohol, appellant's admission to drinking, and her general lack of coordination, Trooper Salyers arrested appellant and charged her with operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OMVI), a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1).
In October 2000, following arraignment and pre-trial hearings, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence based on her argument that, inter alia, there was no probable cause for her arrest because the field-sobriety tests were not administered in strict compliance with the standards set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Accordingly, a pre-trial evidentiary hearing was held regarding appellant's motion to suppress. The sole witness put on the stand was Trooper Salyers.
Trooper Salyers testified that he had pulled appellant over because she was speeding. He further testified that she smelled of alcohol and, when asked, she stated that she had been drinking. Based on these observations, Trooper Salyers requested that appellant consent to field- sobriety tests, and she complied. He then testified as to precisely how he employed these tests.
Trooper Salyers further testified that appellant had a general lack of coordination and that it was his opinion that appellant was intoxicated. Accordingly, he arrested appellant and charged her with OMVI.
Subsequently, the trial court issued an entry denying appellant's motion to suppress.
Shortly thereafter, appellant changed her plea to no contest. Consequently, in December 2000, the lower court found appellant guilty of OMVI and sentenced her to three days in jail, suspended on the condition she attend alcohol counseling, $350 plus court costs, and a six-month suspension of her driving privileges.
II. The Appeal
Appellant timely filed an appeal with this Court, assigning the following error for our review:
IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO OVERRULE THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SUPPRESS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE OFFICER SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STANDARDIZED TESTING PROCEDURES AS SET FORTH IN THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM.. US DEPT. OF TRANSP., HS 178 R2/00, / DWI DETECTION AN
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|