State v. Bruck, 2021 Ohio 2789

Early morning stop (≈1:30 a.m., June 6, 2020): Trooper observed appellant drive unusually — turn around in roadway, flash lights, honk, back up, then run a stop sign to turn onto SR-582; trooper initiated a traffic stop.
During the stop trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol, noticed bloodshot/glassy eyes, and slightly slurred, lethargic speech; appellant was asked to exit and perform field sobriety tests.
Field sobriety results: HGN 6/6 clues; walk-and-turn 3/9 clues; one-legged stand 2/5 clues; failed an alphabet test (skipped S–W). Appellant was arrested for OVI.
Appellant moved to suppress; trial court denied the motion, finding reasonable suspicion to test and probable cause to arrest; appellant pled no-contest and was convicted; sentence largely stayed pending appeal except license suspension.
Appellant appealed, arguing (1) lack of reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests, (2) tests were not given in substantial compliance with NHTSA, and (3) insufficient probable cause to arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bruck)	Held
Reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests	Trooper had articulable facts (abnormal driving, strong odor, glassy eyes, slurred speech, early morning) supporting reasonable suspicion	Only isolated indicators (bloodshot/glassy eyes, odor) like in prior cases; no sufficient suspicion to justify tests	Court held totality (abnormal driving + strong odor + slurred speech + time) gave reasonable suspicion to test
Compliance with NHTSA for field sobriety tests admissibility	Trooper was trained and testified tests were conducted in substantial compliance with NHTSA	Trooper used flashlight for HGN and allegedly failed to check equal tracking/pupil size, so tests not NHTSA-compliant	Court found trooper’s testimony adequate and defendant failed to rebut; tests were in substantial compliance
Probable cause to arrest for OVI	Totality (abnormal driving, odor, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, HGN 6/6, other test clues, alphabet failure) provided probable cause	Walk-and-turn had only 3 of 9 clues (argues insufficient) so no probable cause	Court held probable cause existed based on the totality of circumstances

State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings: deference to trial court factual findings; independent review of legal conclusions)
State v. Brooks, 661 N.E.2d 1030 (Ohio 1996) (courts defer to trial court credibility and factual findings on suppression)
State v. Watkins, 170 N.E.3d 549 (6th Dist. 2021) (distinguishing facts where bloodshot eyes and slight odor alone were insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Codeluppi, 10 N.E.3d 691 (Ohio 2014) (field sobriety results inadmissible unless clear and convincing evidence of substantial NHTSA compliance)
State v. Boles, 158 N.E.3d 1013 (Ohio 2020) (foundation for admitting field sobriety tests: officer training and substantial compliance with NHTSA)
State v. Boczar, 863 N.E.2d 155 (Ohio 2007) (discussing admissibility and foundation for field sobriety test evidence)
State v. Groszewski, 918 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio 2009) (probable cause for OVI determined by totality of facts and circumstances)
State v. Miller, 691 N.E.2d 703 (Ohio App.) (totality-of-circumstances approach for probable cause in driving-under-influence cases)