Bowling Green v. Murray
2019 Ohio 4285
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Early morning (3:45 a.m.) Murray went to the State Highway Patrol post to pick up a friend arrested for OVI; he voluntarily entered the lobby.
- Trooper Black observed Murray had extremely red, glassy eyes, a strong odor of alcohol, and appeared lethargic; Murray admitted driving himself to the post and having three beers about 3–4 hours earlier.
- Trooper Black asked Murray to perform field sobriety tests; Murray failed the HGN test (6/6 clues) and a portable breath test (.082). Trooper Black arrested Murray and later BAC testing showed .092.
- Murray moved to suppress the field sobriety and breath test results, arguing the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain him and that the PBT should not be considered for probable cause.
- The municipal court denied suppression; Murray pled no contest, was convicted under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and appealed. The Sixth District affirmed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murray) | Defendant's Argument (City/Trooper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Murray and administer field sobriety tests | Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion because there was no observed erratic driving, speech was not slurred, and gait was steady | Totality of the circumstances (time, red/glassy eyes, strong odor of alcohol, Murray’s admission he drove and drank three beers) supplied reasonable suspicion | Held: Consensual encounter became justified detention—reasonable, articulable suspicion existed to conduct FSTs |
| Whether the results of a portable breath test may be considered when weighing probable cause to arrest | PBTs are unreliable and should not be used to establish probable cause | PBT results may be considered by an officer in weighing probable cause (not as per se proof) | Held: Court may consider PBT results for probable-cause analysis; here PBT aided the assessment but was not necessary |
| Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest after FSTs/HGN | Arrest was unsupported without observed driving or stronger objective signs | HGN results (6/6) plus officer observations provided probable cause to arrest for OVI | Held: Probable cause existed based on HGN and the totality of observations; arrest valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk/ investigatory stop standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (2003) (appellate-review standard for suppression hearings)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (reasonable-suspicion principles applied to stops)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Bresson, 51 Ohio St.3d 123, 554 N.E.2d 1330 (1990) (qualified officers may testify about HGN for probable-cause issues)
- State v. Henry, 191 Ohio App.3d 151, 945 N.E.2d 544 (2010) (PBT results may be considered when weighing probable cause)
- State v. Mesley, 134 Ohio App.3d 833, 732 N.E.2d 477 (1999) (investigatory stop requires reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56, 711 N.E.2d 761 (1998) (lists factors that may supply reasonable suspicion to conduct FSTs)