2019 Ohio 4270
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Around 1:52–2:00 A.M., Trooper Holloway stopped Barrett for speeding (50 mph in a 35 zone).
- On approach trooper detected an odor of alcohol, Barrett avoided eye contact and rifled papers in the glove box, later had glassy/bloodshot eyes and slightly slurred speech.
- Trooper asked Barrett to perform standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk‑and‑turn, one‑leg stand); HGN showed 6/6 clues; walk‑and‑turn and one‑leg stand each showed one clue.
- Barrett declined a portable breath test, was arrested, and submitted to an evidentiary breath test at the patrol post.
- Barrett moved to suppress the HGN and breath results arguing the post‑stop investigation/arrest lacked probable cause; the trial court granted suppression.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed the stop and post‑stop events de novo and reversed, holding the trooper had reasonable suspicion to administer FSTs and probable cause to arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests | Trooper observed odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech, evasive behavior and speeding; these facts justify FSTs | Barrett argued his coherent interaction, ability to stand, and other benign behavior negated reasonable suspicion | Court: Totality of the circumstances (time, speeding, odor, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, evasive conduct) supplied reasonable suspicion for FSTs |
| Probable cause to arrest for OVI (and admit breath test) | State: Combined observations plus FST results (HGN 6/6) established probable cause to arrest | Barrett: Video showed coherent, steady behavior and no other strong signs of impairment; trial court found he "passed" other tests | Court: Under totality of circumstances, probable cause existed for arrest; suppression reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (discusses appellate review of suppression rulings and standards)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (reasonable suspicion/probable cause determinations reviewed de novo under totality of the circumstances)
- State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 (Ohio 1980) (endorses totality‑of‑the‑circumstances analysis for DUI investigations)
- State v. Heston, 29 Ohio St.2d 152 (Ohio 1972) (defines probable cause as facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe an offense was committed)
- State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (outlines methods for challenging suppression rulings on appeal)