State v. Clinger, 2022 Ohio 723

On April 10, 2021, Curtis R.S. Clinger reported a single-vehicle crash; a deputy (Szakats) responded and spoke to him at the scene.
Deputy Szakats testified he observed droopy/"glassy" eyes, a tired/sluggish appearance, slowed/slurred speech, and the odor of raw marijuana; he asked Clinger to perform field sobriety tests.
Clinger submitted to HGN and walk‑and‑turn tests; Szakats reported HGN showed 6/6 impairment clues and the walk‑and‑turn was poorly performed; Clinger was arrested for OVI.
Clinger moved to suppress the field‑sobriety evidence, arguing Szakats lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand a consensual encounter and that tests were not NHTSA‑compliant.
The trial court reviewed the available body‑cam video, found no slurred speech, concluded the only observable indicia before removal from the vehicle were glassy eyes, tired appearance, and smell of raw marijuana, and granted the suppression motion.
The State appealed, arguing the deputy had reasonable suspicion based on his observations (including slurred speech) and other circumstances; the appellate court affirmed the suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Clinger)	Held
Whether the deputy had reasonable, articulable suspicion to request field sobriety tests during a consensual encounter	Szakats observed slurred speech, droopy/glassy eyes, a drowsy/sluggish appearance, and smelled raw marijuana—these facts justified asking for tests	Video and trial‑court findings show no slurred speech; only glassy eyes, tired appearance, and odor of marijuana of unknown strength, which alone are insufficient	Held: Affirmed suppression. Glassy eyes, tired appearance, and marijuana odor, without further indicia, did not supply reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests.
Whether the trial court’s factual findings were supported by competent, credible evidence	State: Court should credit deputy’s oral testimony about observations during an unrecorded initial contact (including slurred speech)	Clinger: Video contradicted slurred‑speech claim; trial court properly evaluated credibility and relied on recorded evidence	Held: Trial court’s factual findings were supported by competent, credible evidence (court credited the video over the deputy’s inconsistent testimony).

State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (appellate courts accept trial court’s factual findings on suppression if supported by competent, credible evidence)
State v. Mills, 582 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio 1992) (trial court best positioned to resolve witness credibility)
State v. Orr, 745 N.E.2d 1036 (Ohio 2001) (distinguishes consensual encounters from seizures and notes limits on extending consensual encounters)
State v. Evans, 711 N.E.2d 761 (Ohio App. 1998) (lists factors courts consider in assessing reasonable suspicion for sobriety testing)