State v. Adams, 2017 Ohio 7743

Background

Late-night (12:45 a.m.) traffic stop: Officer Seiter observed Adams commit a speeding violation (52–55 mph in a 45 zone) after briefly driving partially in the travel lane and touching the center line multiple times. Seiter initiated a stop and contacted Adams.
On contact Seiter detected a moderate/alcohol odor, a flushed face, and (testimony) glassy eyes; Adams admitted one drink earlier and fumbled for insurance. Seiter placed Adams in his cruiser while awaiting backup.
Seiter administered an HGN (horizontal gaze nystagmus) test; on video he told Adams he appeared "ok to drive" and that Adams had not shown HGN clues. Seiter then gave Adams a portable breath test (PBT) that read .136.
After the PBT, Seiter conducted a second HGN (with Adams’ glasses on), observed six HGN clues, administered other sobriety tests, arrested Adams, and later obtained a Datamaster BAC of .132.
Adams moved to suppress, arguing the post-first-HGN detention and subsequent testing/consent were unlawful. The trial court denied suppression, granted the State’s motion in limine (prohibiting impairment evidence after electing the per se charge), convicted Adams of per se OVI (.132), and sentenced him. The appellate court reversed in part and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Adams)	Held
Was the initial stop and first sobriety testing supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion?	Officer had RAS based on time, speeding, odor, flushed face, glassy eyes, fumbling, and admission of drinking.	Facts were insufficient; minor infractions and slight odor alone do not justify FSTs.	Held: Initial stop and first sobriety test were supported by RAS.
Was continued detention after the officer told Adams he was "ok to drive" lawful, and were subsequent tests (PBT, second HGN) permissible?	Continued investigation was justified by increased odor in cruiser and officer observations; PBT was voluntary and provided probable cause.	Officer’s on-video statements that Adams was fine to drive ended the lawful detention; further detention and testing were therefore unlawful, and consent tainted.	Held: Court found officer’s on-record statements (video) effectively terminated the stop; further detention was unlawful. Suppression ruling reversed in part and remanded to consider voluntariness of consent for PBT.
Was the second HGN compliant with NHTSA and prejudicial?	Second HGN was properly conducted and reliable despite glasses.	Second HGN violated NHTSA (glasses) and was the only material difference; noncompliance prejudiced Adams.	Held: Moot on appeal because remand on unlawful detention/consent; appellate court did not decide the substantial-compliance claim.
Did officer’s alleged misstatement about consequences of refusal (no‑refusal checkpoint/warrant) render breath test involuntary?	Any misstatement would affect ALS administrative consequences, not suppressibility of chemical test; no coercion shown.	Misstatement was coercive and may have vitiated voluntariness of consent.	Held: Moot on appeal pending remand; court did not resolve because it found the detention ruling dispositive.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio 1997) (continued detention beyond purpose of stop without articulable suspicion makes subsequent consent suspect; voluntariness must be examined).
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review on motions to suppress: defer to trial court fact findings if supported by competent, credible evidence; independent review of legal conclusions).
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (officer may briefly detain on reasonable, articulable suspicion; totality of circumstances governs).
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent to search must be voluntary under totality of circumstances; knowledge of right to refuse is a factor but not required).
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (consent cannot be mere submission to claim of lawful authority; prosecution bears burden to prove voluntariness).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (brief investigative stops permissible on reasonable suspicion; scope must be related to justification).
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1975) (scope of investigative stops must be reasonably related to basis for initiation).