Cuyahoga Falls v. Doskocil, 2013 Ohio 2074

Doskocil was stopped after Officer Shafer observed his car pass a stationary vehicle during a field encounter on Broad Boulevard.
Doskocil faced three charges: OVI under C.F.C.O. 333.01(a)(1)(A), prohibited BAC under C.F.C.O. 333.01(a)(1)(D), and approaching a stationary public safety vehicle under C.F.C.O. 333.031.
Doskocil moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion and he pleaded no contest to all charges after the ruling.
The court merged the OVI charges and sentenced Doskocil to 30 days in jail (27 suspended) with driver intervention program, plus fines, stayed for appeal.
On appeal, the State argues the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and that Doskocil cannot challenge the 333.031 conviction given the no-contest plea; the defense argues there was no reasonable suspicion and urges weight/sufficiency challenges were improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion?	Doskocil contends lack of reasonable suspicion.	State argues sufficient totality of circumstances supported the stop.	Stop supported by reasonable suspicion; denial of suppression affirmed.
May Doskocil challenge 333.031 conviction after a no-contest plea?	Doskocil argues insufficiency/weight should be reviewable.	State maintains no-contest plea forecloses appellate challenge to sufficiency/weight.	Cannot challenge; no-contest plea forecloses sufficiency/weight review; assignments overruled.

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (set standard for reviewing suppression rulings and mixed questions of fact and law)
State v. Hobbs, 133 Ohio St.3d 43 (2012-Ohio-3886) (applies Burnside framework to suppression review)
Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (totality of circumstances for investigative stops)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (appellate review of suppression is mixed law and fact)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable suspicion standard guiding investigative stops)