Parma Hts. v. Dedejczyk
2012 Ohio 3458
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Officer stopped Dedejczyk after she pulled out into traffic against a red light and made a wide turn, exposing oncoming traffic and prompting a stop for traffic violations.
- He smelled alcohol, observed glassy eyes, and heard she admitted to drinking after initially denying it, leading to a portable breath test and field sobriety testing.
- Dedejczyk was cited for OVI, prohibited BAC, failure to obey a traffic control device, and improper turn; she moved to suppress all evidence.
- The trial court denied suppression, finding credibility in the officer and substantial compliance with NHTSA standards for sobriety testing.
- Dedejczyk pleaded no contest; the appellate court reviews suppression rulings de novo on legal questions and from the trial court’s factual findings.
- The court ultimately affirmed, holding the initial stop lawful, the expanded inquiry supported by reasonable suspicion, substantial compliance with NHTSA standards, and sufficient probable cause for arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial stop lawful? | Dedejczyk argues no traffic violation occurred. | Parma Heights contends the red-light/turns observed gave probable cause or, at least, reasonable suspicion. | Initial stop lawful; probable cause or reasonable suspicion supported the stop. |
| Was there reasonable suspicion to expand to field sobriety testing? | Dedejczyk contends no reasonable suspicion existed to justify testing. | The officer relied on odor, eyes, speech, and admission of drinking. | Yes; totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion to conduct sobriety tests. |
| Did the officer substantially comply with NHTSA standards for sobriety testing? | Dedejczyk asserts noncompliance with NHTSA standards undermines admissibility. | Officer’s testimony showed substantial, not perfect, compliance. | Substantial compliance established; tests admissible under the standard. |
| Was there probable cause to arrest for OVI after testing? | Argues absence of probable cause. | Evidence including odor, eyes, slurred speech, self-admission, and test results supported arrest. | Probable cause existed for OVI arrest. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard for reviewing suppression on mixed questions of law and fact; de novo on law, defer to facts)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (recognizes stop for traffic violation and de minimis violations justify stops)
- State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007) (substantial compliance with NHTSA for field sobriety tests)
- State v. Clark, 2010 Ohio-4567 (12th Dist.) (case on substantial compliance with NHTSA and admissibility of non-scientific test results)
- State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56 (1998) (factors for reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (reasonable suspicion standard for stops longer than a mere traffic violation)
- State v. Mai, 2006-Ohio-1430 (2d Dist.) (recognizes substantial compliance standard for sobriety testing)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (probable cause standard for arrest; totality of circumstances)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (establishes stop/seizure framework in traffic contexts)
- Schmitt v. Ohio, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (permits use of lay testimony under Evid.R.701 when sobriety tests lack strict compliance)