State v. Dowty
2016 Ohio 4719
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Officer Perdue observed a vehicle exit a Walgreen’s private parking lot and turn right onto Salem Avenue; the lot exit to the road is ~30 feet.
- While stopped at the lot exit, the driver did not initially signal; before entering the roadway she activated a left signal, then switched to a right signal, and then turned right.
- Officer Perdue stopped the vehicle for violating the turn-signal statute (Dayton R.C.G.O. 71.31 / R.C. 4511.39), then discovered drug evidence after a pat-down and Miranda warnings.
- Dowty was indicted for possession offenses and moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful stop.
- The trial court granted suppression, reasoning the turn-signal statute’s 100-foot continuous signaling requirement applies to travel on a highway, not to movement inside a private parking lot, so the officer’s interpretation was unreasonable.
- The State appealed; the appellate court affirmed the suppression order, holding no objectively reasonable officer could conclude the statute required signaling for 100 feet while in a private lot before entering a roadway.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Dowty for violating the turn-signal statute | Officer reasonably suspected a violation of R.C.G.O. 71.31 / R.C. 4511.39 because driver did not signal while approaching/entering the roadway | No violation occurred: statute requires signaling on a highway and does not reasonably require 100 feet of signaling while inside a private parking lot | Court held: no reasonable suspicion — statute doesn’t require 100 feet of signaling inside a private parking lot; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. State, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (trial court is factfinder on suppression; appellate court reviews legal application de novo)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (application of law to suppression hearing facts reviewed de novo)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (an objectively reasonable mistake of law can supply reasonable suspicion for a stop)
- Andrews v. State, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (totality-of-circumstances test for investigative stops as viewed by a reasonable officer)
- Bobo v. State, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (officer must react to events as they unfold under reasonable-officer standard)