Stat v. Laizure
2016 Ohio 3252
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan 7, 2015, Officer Hickman observed Laizure fail to signal a turn; Laizure entered a Sav-A-Lot and later drove out across the lot onto a public road in snowy/icy conditions.
- Hickman testified he visually estimated Laizure’s speed at 35–40 mph in a 25 mph zone and stopped the vehicle at about 8:25 p.m.; he did not use radar and had no academy-certified training in visual speed estimation.
- After the stop officers discovered marijuana and a loaded handgun; Laizure was indicted for improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle and trafficking in marijuana.
- Laizure moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion and probable cause because it rested on an unaided visual speed estimate.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress, holding Hickman was unqualified, as a matter of law, to visually estimate speed without independent verification and therefore lacked sufficient probable cause to stop the vehicle.
- The State appealed the suppression ruling to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hickman had reasonable/articulable suspicion to stop Laizure for unsafe/too-fast driving given road conditions | The stop was justified: Hickman observed signaling violation and, based on experience, visually estimated excessive speed for conditions | The stop rested on an unaided visual speed estimate by an officer without certified training; statute prohibits arrests/charges based on unaided visual speed estimates | Court affirmed suppression: unaided visual speed estimate by untrained officer did not provide sufficient probable cause for the stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Fourth Amendment stop-and-frisk/ investigatory stop standard)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable suspicion/probable cause determinations reviewed de novo)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (a traffic violation observed by an officer can justify a stop)
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for investigative stops)
- Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5 (addressed conviction based solely on officer's visual speed estimate; prompted legislative response)