2023 Ohio 1594
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Early morning, March 18, 2022 (after St. Patrick’s Day): officers observed Bailey drive onto/brush a curb and initiated a traffic stop.
- Officers smelled alcohol, saw open and unopened beer cans near the driver’s seat, and noted Bailey’s slurred speech, glassy/bloodshot eyes, and erratic conduct (exited vehicle, slow to follow commands).
- On-scene field sobriety tests: HGN 6/6, failed walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand, could not recite alphabet; officers transported Bailey to the station.
- At the station Bailey refused a breath test; officer recorded refusal and imposed an administrative license suspension (ALS).
- Trial court denied Bailey’s motions to vacate the ALS and to suppress; Bailey pleaded no contest to amended OVI charge; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of initial traffic stop | State: Officer observed curb strikes/brushings constituting a lane violation, giving reasonable suspicion for a stop. | Bailey: Dashcam did not corroborate violations; officer negligence in recording undermines credibility. | Stop lawful — officers reasonably observed curb contact and had articulable suspicion to stop. |
| Authority to request field sobriety tests | State: Totality (time, post-holiday, curb hits, odor, open containers, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech) supplied reasonable suspicion for FSTs. | Bailey: Dashcam doesn’t show slurred speech; remaining indicators insufficient for reasonable suspicion. | Request lawful — officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion under the totality of circumstances. |
| Probable cause to arrest for OVI | State: Combined indicators (FST failures, HGN 6/6, odor, open containers, appearance, driving) furnished probable cause. | Bailey: No demonstrated impaired motor coordination; insufficient evidence for arrest. | Probable cause existed to arrest for OVI. |
| Challenge to ALS (vacatur) | State: Probable cause for arrest implies the lower “reasonable ground” standard for ALS was satisfied. | Bailey: Officers lacked reasonable ground to believe he was operating under the influence. | Trial court properly denied ALS appeal; reasonable grounds existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (explains appellate standard for reviewing suppression—trial court’s factual findings entitled to deference; legal questions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (a traffic stop is valid when an officer observes a lane-marking violation)
- State v. Groszewski, 183 Ohio App.3d 718 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (sets forth probable-cause standard for OVI arrests under the totality of circumstances)
- Younis v. United States, 890 F. Supp. 2d 818 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (court discounted officer credibility where repeated violations were not recorded)
- McCaig v. State, 51 Ohio App.3d 94 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988) (applies totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine reasonable grounds for ALS)