State v. Turner12/21/2000
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
APPEAL from the Franklin County Municipal Court.
Plaintiff-appellant, State of Ohio, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court granting the motion to suppress of defendant-appellee, Michael C. Turner. The state assigns a single error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN STOPPING APPELLEE'S VEHICLE.
Because the trial court improperly granted defendant's motion to suppress, we reverse.
On November 21, 1999 at 1:28 a.m., State Trooper Lance S. Shearer, as part of a DUI task force, was driving eastbound on Bethel Road at the intersection of Bethel and Dierker Roads. Stopped at the intersection, he observed defendant make a right turn from northbound Dierker Road onto eastbound Bethel Road. Shearer stopped defendant and ultimately charged him with an improper right turn in violation of R.C. 4511.36(A), operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs of abuse in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol content in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(3), and a seatbelt violation contrary to R.C. 4513.263(B)(1).
Defendant responded with a motion to suppress, asserting various grounds in support of his motion. Following the state's reply, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which defendant agreed the sole issue was whether Shearer had a reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that, given "the totality of the circumstances, the date and time involved, the conditions of the roadway, the lack of traffic, and all other factors present * there is a lack of reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle under these circumstances." (Tr. 34.) The state's single assignment of error asserts the trial court erred in so concluding.
"In a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate witness credibility." State v. Curry (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 93, 96. Thus, a reviewing court is bound to accept the trial court's findings of fact in ruling on a motion to suppress if the findings are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Claytor (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 623, 627. Nonetheless, the reviewing court must independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the trial court's decision meets the appropriate legal standard. Id.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits warrantless searches and seizures, rendering them per se unreasonable unless an exception applies. Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. An investigative stop, or Terry stop, is a common exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. In Terry, the Supreme Court held that a police officer may stop an individual if the officer has a reasonable suspicion based upon specific and articulable facts that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent. See, also, State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 61.
A law enforcement officer properly may stop an automobile under the Terry stop exception. Delaware v. Prost (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660; State v. Heinrichs (1988), 46 Ohio App.3d 63. Thus, an individual operating an automobile may be stopped if the officer possesses the requisite reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts. State v. Gedeon (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 617, 618. The pr
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|