State v. Cooper
2013 Ohio 5489
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On Jan. 28, 2012, Officer Rose stopped Ryan Cooper after his car crossed the center line following a left turn.
- Officer Rose detected an odor of alcohol, perceived slurred speech, and had Cooper perform mental tasks (counting backward, reciting alphabet) and standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, one-leg stand, walk-and-turn).
- Cooper was arrested and charged under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d); he moved to suppress the field sobriety results and the arrest.
- At the suppression hearing the parties agreed the trial court would take judicial notice of the 2000 NHTSA manual; the court also reviewed the stop video (admitted at the hearing).
- The municipal court denied the motion to suppress; Cooper pled no contest to one OVI count, appealed, and challenged (1) substantial compliance with NHTSA standards and admissibility of test results and (2) existence of probable cause to arrest.
- The Ninth District affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s factual findings (which relied on the video) and concluding substantial compliance and probable cause were shown or must be presumed because the video was not in the appellate record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cooper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s administration of field sobriety tests was shown by clear and convincing evidence to be in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards (R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b)) | Judicial notice of the 2000 NHTSA manual and the trial court’s review of the video support a finding of substantial compliance; officer’s testimony and video suffice. | Officer argues the State didn’t introduce NHTSA guidelines via the officer and the officer never testified he followed the manual; therefore results are inadmissible. | Court held parties stipulated to the 2000 NHTSA manual; trial court viewed video and had the manual to compare—substantial compliance found (and appellate court must presume regularity because video was not in the record). |
| Whether, independent of sobriety-test admissibility, the totality of circumstances established probable cause to arrest for OVI | Officer observed odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, alleged slurred speech, and test clues—totality supports probable cause. | Cooper contends his eyes were not bloodshot, speech not slurred, and he performed tests without problems, so probable cause was lacking. | Court held the trial court’s factual findings (based on video and testimony) supported probable cause; affirmed arrest validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (mixed questions on suppression: appellate deference to trial court factual findings; legal issues reviewed de novo)
- Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (1999) (probable cause for OVI measured by totality of facts a prudent person would find trustworthy)
- Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (2011) (invited error doctrine bars claiming error a party invited)
- Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (recognition of R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b) on other grounds)