 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cline11/17/2004
This timely matter comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties' briefs. Appellant Larry Cline appeals the decision of the Monroe County Court overruling his motion to suppress and finding him guilty of a second offense driving under the influence. Cline argues that the officer that found Cline asleep in his motor vehicle, smelling of alcohol, after crashing into a telephone pole in the parking lot next to a bar had no probable cause to place him under arrest. Because of the unique factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, we conclude the officer did in fact have probable cause. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts
{ } On November 29, 2003, Cline was arrested and cited for second offense DUI. Cline pleaded not guilty to the charge and filed a motion to suppress evidence or in the alternative a motion to dismiss the charge. The trial court scheduled a hearing on the matter.
{ } At the hearing, Officer Young, the arresting officer, testified that he had known Cline for over ten years prior to the date of the arrest. He further testified that, on November 29, 2003, his shift started at midnight. Soon after, he noticed that Cline's car was parked at JT's Bar and Grill. At 3:19 in the morning, Officer Young noticed the same car sitting below a telephone pole. It appeared that the vehicle had struck the pole. Three-quarters of the car was in a parking lot across the street from JT's Bar and one-quarter of the car was sitting on the roadway. The officer could tell the path the car had taken from the tracks left in the snow.
{ } Officer Young approached the vehicle and looked into the driver's side window. He found Cline sitting in the driver's seat with his eyes closed. The officer opened the car door but Cline remained seated with his eyes closed. Officer Young testified that the smell of alcohol was "overwhelming". He then attempted to arouse or wake Cline and told him he was under arrest. It took Officer Young three attempts at waking Cline before he could get him to respond.
{ } Officer Young summarized the factors that led him to believe that Cline was driving under the influence:
{ } "I had a vehicle parked at a bar at midnight when I came to work; the tracks indicated he left the parking space in front of the bar, hit the pole, backed up, parked it in the yard.
{ } "I had the damage to the vehicle; and when I opened the car door, it just reeked of an alcoholic beverage."
{ } After hearing Officer Young's testimony, the trial court denied Cline's motion to suppress. Cline subsequently entered a plea of no contest and the trial court convicted Cline of second violation driving under the influence. It is from that conviction that Cline now timely appeals.
{ } As his sole assignment of error, Cline argues:
{ } "The trial court erred on overruling Defendant's joint motion to dismiss/suppress when the record establishes that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to make a warrantless arrest."
{ } Cline argues that the facts in this case are simple. "An officer approached a vehicle on the side of the road, ordered Defendant-Appellant out of the vehicle, and immediately placed him under arrest for OMVI." However, after reviewing the additional facts provided through Officer's Young's testimony, in light of recent caselaw, there was probable cause to arrest Cline. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Cline's motion to suppress.
{ } A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact to the reviewing court. State v. Long (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332. "An appellate court must r
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|