State v. Curley
2016 Ohio 7624
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- At 2:49 a.m. on October 2, 2015, Officer Jonathon McCoy stopped Tyler Curley after observing that Curley’s rear license plate was not adequately illuminated while McCoy drove behind him and turned off his cruiser headlights.
- On approaching the vehicle McCoy smelled burnt marijuana, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes and slurred speech, and detected one dim plate light and one nonworking light; Curley admitted smoking marijuana and drinking an hour earlier.
- Curley failed unspecified field sobriety tests and refused a chemical test; he was charged with OVI (second offense), refusal with a prior OVI, a license-plate-light violation, possession of marijuana (<100g), and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Curley moved to suppress the field sobriety evidence, arguing improper administration, but the suppression hearing focused on whether McCoy had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle for the plate-light violation.
- The trial court credited McCoy’s testimony over defense photographs taken later and denied the motion to suppress; Curley then pleaded no contest to all charges and appealed, contesting the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion that the rear plate was not properly illuminated | McCoy observed the plate could not be legible from ~50 feet, one bulb dim, one inoperative, giving reasonable suspicion to stop | Curley disputed distance/visibility; submitted later nighttime photos and testimony asserting plate legible at 50 feet and challenged McCoy’s distance estimates | Court affirmed: trial court’s factual findings were supported by competent, credible evidence and McCoy had reasonable suspicion to stop |
| Whether later photos and Curley’s testimony rebutted officer’s observations | State argued photos were taken at different time/place and did not contradict officer’s on-scene observations | Curley argued no changes to lighting and photos showed proper illumination, undermining officer credibility | Court held photos taken later did not refute McCoy’s contemporaneous observations; trial court free to credit officer |
| Proper interpretation of ordinance requiring plate illumination | State: ordinance requires a white light placed to illuminate the plate on the vehicle itself | Curley (argued at oral argument): illumination could be from another vehicle’s headlights and ordinance ambiguous | Court rejected Curley’s interpretation and found ordinance unambiguous that the vehicle must illuminate its rear plate |
| Whether suppression ruling was reversible under review standards | State: trial court’s factual findings are entitled to deference and independently reviewable legal conclusion supports denial | Curley framed as sufficiency/weight challenge and contested credibility findings | Court applied proper suppression-review standard, accepted trial court’s factual findings, and overruled the assignment of error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (2d Dist. 1994) (trial court as factfinder; appellate deference to factual findings in suppression rulings)
- State v. Mays, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 2008) (officer may stop vehicle for observed traffic violation; reasonable suspicion standard)
- State v. Eggleston, 29 N.E.3d 23 (Ohio App.) (existence of reasonable suspicion not negated by ultimate lack of conviction for suspected activity)
- State v. Ramos, 801 N.E.2d 523 (Ohio App.) (traffic-stop duration and when additional suspicion justifies continued detention)
- State v. Held, 766 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio App.) (requirement of an operable plate light and that reflective plates do not excuse lack of illumination)