State v. Butcher, 2020 Ohio 3524

Around 1:59–2:00 a.m., Trooper Betzel observed Butcher leaving a bar, turn without signaling, and then drive at about 10 mph over the limit; the trooper initiated a stop after following him.
Butcher took ~30 seconds to stop after lights were activated and turned onto another street before pulling over; he said he avoided steep ditches as his reason for delaying.
On contact the trooper smelled an unspecified odor of alcohol and observed Butcher’s bloodshot, glassy eyes; Butcher refused field sobriety tests and said he drank “yesterday.”
The trooper arrested Butcher for OVI after these observations and refusals; Butcher was also cited for speeding.
The municipal court granted Butcher’s motion to suppress, concluding the continued detention (asking him out of the vehicle to perform FSTs) lacked reasonable suspicion and suppressing all evidence obtained thereafter.
The State appealed under Crim.R. 12(K); the Court of Appeals reversed the suppression ruling and remanded for reconsideration of probable cause in light of the erroneously suppressed evidence.

Issue	State's Argument	Butcher's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to conduct field sobriety testing	Trooper’s cumulative observations (late hour, leaving bar, failure to signal, speeding, delayed stop, odd route, bloodshot/glassy eyes, odor of alcohol, partial admission of drinking) supplied reasonable suspicion	The individual factors were insufficient; the trooper acted on a hunch when asking him out of the vehicle and detaining him further	Court: Totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion to detain for FSTs; reversal of suppression granted
Whether evidence obtained after Butcher exited the vehicle should be suppressed	State: Evidence should be admissible because detention was supported by reasonable suspicion	Butcher: Evidence obtained after unlawful extension must be suppressed	Court: Trial court erred to suppress; remanded to reconsider probable cause with that evidence considered
Whether any error was harmless (dissent)	N/A (State did not identify specific prejudice beyond suppression)	Dissent: State failed to show prejudice; reversal not warranted absent showing of harm	Dissent would find any error harmless and would not reverse; majority disagreed

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (motion to suppress involves mixed question of law and fact; appellate courts accept trial court facts but review legal conclusion de novo)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court as factfinder on suppression)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (an investigative stop may not last longer than necessary absent additional reasonable suspicion)
State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) (officer may lengthen a stop if additional facts give rise to reasonable suspicion)
State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (2007) (reasonable-suspicion analysis must consider the collection of factors)
State v. Hairston, 156 Ohio St.3d 363 (2019) (reaffirming collective-factor reasonable-suspicion approach)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (appellate review of suppression determinations)
State v. Sibert, 98 Ohio App.3d 412 (1994) (appellant bears burden to show prejudice for reversal)