State v. Burkhart
2016 Ohio 7534
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- At 1:46 a.m. on Feb. 26, 2016, Trooper Christopher Davis stopped 19‑year‑old Sidney Burkhart for speeding (43 mph in a 25 mph zone).
- On approach Davis detected a strong odor of alcohol from the vehicle and observed Burkhart’s eyes as red/bloodshot/glassy; there was a passenger in the car.
- Davis asked Burkhart to exit (stating he wanted to “check her eyes”), smelled alcohol on her breath outside the vehicle, administered field sobriety tests, and later arrested her for OVI (BAC reported .160).
- Burkhart moved to suppress, arguing Davis lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand the stop from speeding to an OVI investigation and to order field sobriety testing.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress; the State appealed. The appellate majority reversed, holding Davis had reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand the stop and perform sobriety tests; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer lawfully expanded a valid speeding stop into an OVI investigation and ordered field sobriety testing | The State: facts observed (strong odor of alcohol from vehicle and on breath, red/bloodshot/glassy eyes, time of night, excessive speed) gave reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand the stop | Burkhart: officer lacked sufficient suspicion before ordering her out and initiating OVI investigation; Evans factors do not support expansion | Reversed trial court: considering totality (time, excessive speed, eye condition, strong odor from vehicle and on breath plus officer training) officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand the stop and administer tests |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review on suppression: facts deferred to trial court; legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (traffic stop reasonable if officer has probable cause for traffic violation)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (officer may order driver out of vehicle after lawful stop)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 2008) (reasonable, articulable suspicion is sufficient to justify investigative stop)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (appellate courts give due weight to inferences of on‑the‑scene officers but review legal determination of reasonable suspicion de novo)
- State v. Santiago, 195 Ohio App.3d 649, 961 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (a strong odor of alcohol, especially if present on the suspect’s breath after exit, can support reasonable suspicion to investigate OVI)