Cleveland v. Hyppolite
2016 Ohio 7399
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In the early morning hours of Dec. 22, 2015, Trooper Kay stopped Joanne Hyppolite on I-90 after she passed his cruiser in the right lane without moving over or slowing; cruiser’s overhead lights were activated.
- Trooper observed Hyppolite with bloodshot, glassy eyes, slow/slurred speech, a passenger doing most of the talking, and (per trooper) an odor of alcohol from the vehicle.
- Trooper asked Hyppolite to exit and administered HGN/VGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand, and an alphabet test; trooper testified she exhibited numerous standardized-test clues of impairment and admitted to three shots of whiskey.
- Hyppolite was arrested after failing breath testing at the post and charged with OVI; she moved to suppress evidence, which the municipal court denied after a hearing.
- Hyppolite appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the stop was improperly expanded, the trooper did not substantially comply with NHTSA standards, cross-examination was improperly limited, and there was no probable cause for arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Hyppolite) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion to expand a traffic stop and request FSTs | Trooper had articulable facts (failure to move/slow, odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, out-of-state license) supporting suspicion of intoxication | Trooper observed only minimal clues before ordering Hyppolite out (insufficient to prolong/expand the stop) | Held: Trooper had reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances; expansion lawful |
| Whether the court abused discretion by limiting cross-examination about NHTSA manual and instructions | Limitation was reasonable because the manual was not in evidence and extensive page-by-page parsing was cumulative/repetitive | Court improperly restricted confrontation and specific cross on NHTSA compliance and precise instructions | Held: No abuse; defendant was able to elicit relevant impeaching testimony and cross-examination remained effective |
| Whether trooper substantially complied with NHTSA standards for admissibility of FST results | Trooper had training, testified to NHTSA procedures for each test, and substantially followed them despite minor deviations | Trooper deviated from manual timing, wording, and order (argues failures to substantially comply) | Held: Substantial compliance established by competent testimony; minor deviations do not defeat substantial compliance |
| Whether trooper had probable cause to arrest for OVI | Trooper’s observations, admission of drinking, FST failures, and breath test results provided probable cause | Trooper lacked sufficient trustworthy facts at arrest moment to form PC | Held: Probable cause existed based on observed cues, admissions, and FST performance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (trial court findings of fact on suppression are entitled to deference; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio 1997) (officer may extend detention only upon articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 2000) (probable cause for OVI judged by whether facts at arrest would lead a prudent person to believe suspect was driving under the influence)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (scope/duration of traffic stop must be tailored to its underlying justification)
- State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 2007) (NHTSA manual may be proven by testimony or by introducing manual; admissibility of FST results requires substantial compliance)