Akron v. Starks
2017 Ohio 7235
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 27, 2016, Trooper Haslar observed Derek Starks driving ~50 mph in a 35 mph zone, with a broken right headlight and cracked windshield; radar confirmed 50 mph.
- Trooper initiated a traffic stop based on observed speeding and vehicle defects.
- Upon approach, officer detected odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes; Starks admitted he was coming from a bar and had "three to four shots."
- Officer administered three standardized field sobriety tests, which the officer testified indicated impairment; Starks was arrested and later had a BAC over the legal limit.
- Starks was convicted by a jury of two DUI counts (which merged) and guilty of speeding; sentenced to suspended jail term conditioned on intervention class, fines, costs, and license suspension.
- Starks appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to move to suppress the stop and to challenge probable cause for arrest; appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Starks) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging the traffic stop | Counsel should have moved to suppress because stop lacked reasonable suspicion (no corroborating evidence of speeding or unsafe speed) | Trooper visually observed speeding and confirmed it by radar; any traffic-law violation gives rise to reasonable suspicion | Not ineffective; stop had objective basis (speeding and vehicle defects) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging probable cause for arrest | Counsel should have challenged arrest for DUI because insufficient evidence of impairment | Officer observed signs of intoxication, Starks admitted drinking three-four shots, field sobriety tests indicated impairment, and BAC was over limit | Not ineffective; combined observations, admission, and field tests supplied probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (any traffic-law violation justifies investigatory stop)
- State v. Reynolds, 80 Ohio St.3d 670 (applies Strickland standard in Ohio)
- State v. Keith, 79 Ohio St.3d 514 (prejudice prong under Ohio precedent)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (failure to file suppression motion not per se ineffective)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (Ohio recognition that traffic violations justify stop)