State v. Aicher
112 N.E.3d 85
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- At ~1:05 a.m. on Aug. 6, 2016, Officer Lambert stopped Aicher for expired license plates and detected a moderate odor of alcohol on Aicher’s breath, a faint odor of burnt marijuana, glassy eyes, and occasional slurred speech. Aicher admitted to having “a couple” drinks and said he came from a downtown bar district.
- Lambert conducted field sobriety tests, concluded Aicher was impaired, and arrested him at 1:22 a.m.; an inventory search produced an open flask and drug paraphernalia.
- Aicher was held in a monitored jail cell; Lambert administered an Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test at 2:07 a.m., which read .16 g/210 L.
- The State presented testimony from an Ohio Dept. of Health inspector who certified the Intoxilyzer 8000 on Sept. 9, 2015 and produced certification records showing the instrument was in proper working order and within required tolerances.
- Aicher moved to suppress (1) evidence from the field sobriety tests, arguing lack of reasonable articulable suspicion to prolong the stop, and (2) his breath-test result, arguing noncompliance with ODH regulations. The trial court denied suppression; Aicher pleaded no contest and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Aicher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand a stop for expired plates into an OVI investigation and administer field sobriety tests | Officer observed moderate odor of alcohol, faint marijuana odor, glassy eyes, slight slurred speech, admission of drinking and coming from bar district — totality supports reasonable suspicion | Observations were insufficient; traffic stop was for a de minimis violation and did not justify prolongation absent stronger indicators of impairment | Court: Totality (time, moderate alcohol odor, faint marijuana odor, glassy eyes, slurred speech, admission of drinking) provided reasonable, articulable suspicion; denial affirmed |
| Whether breath-test result was admissible because testing complied with Ohio Dept. of Health regulations | State showed Intoxilyzer 8000 was certified, in working order, dry-gas checks within tolerance, ethyl solution properly handled, and conditions met for substantial compliance | Aicher claimed lack of 20-minute observation, missing RFI check, unrefrigerated ethyl solution, and an out-of-tolerance dry gas reading | Court: Substantial compliance established. 20-minute observation satisfied by monitored custody; RFI check requirement did not apply to Intoxilyzer 8000; solution was single-use so refrigeration not required; dry-gas readings were within allowable variance — admission affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stop reasonableness standard)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio standard re: Fourth Amendment and motor vehicle stops)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (State’s burden to show substantial compliance with ODH regulations for breath tests)
- Bolivar v. Dick, 76 Ohio St.3d 216 (20-minute observation and operational checklist principles for breath testing)