State v. Egnor
2020 Ohio 327
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On June 21–22, 2018 Officer Clevenger observed Michael Egnor make a left turn on North Main Street, during which the officer testified Egnor drifted right and straddled the center line for a short distance.
- The cruiser dashcam did not capture the full turn (officer observed it from his window), but video corroborated subsequent weaving within Egnor's lane.
- Officer made a U-turn, followed Egnor, observed additional weaving and speed changes, then stopped the vehicle and cited Egnor for driving under suspension, an intersection-turn violation, and OVI; breath test showed .162 BAC.
- Egnor moved to suppress the breath test evidence, arguing the stop was pretextual and premised on an incorrect statutory citation (R.C. 4511.36(A)(3) rather than (A)(2)).
- Trial court held a suppression hearing, credited the officer’s testimony, denied suppression, and that decision was appealed after Egnor pleaded no contest and was sentenced (sentence stayed pending appeal).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Egnor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of the traffic stop (pretextual?) | Officer observed a traffic violation (straddling/weaving) and had at least reasonable suspicion to stop | Stop was pretextual; officer cited the wrong statute and lacked lawful basis | Stop was lawful; trial court credited officer and denial of suppression affirmed |
| Wrong statutory citation (4511.36(A)(3) vs. (A)(2)) — does it invalidate the stop? | Incorrect subsection on ticket is inconsequential if officer had objectively reasonable belief a violation occurred | Mistake of law shows stop was unsupported and unconstitutional | An objectively reasonable mistake of law can justify a stop; wrong subsection did not invalidate the stop |
| Sufficiency of officer testimony / dashcam evidence | Officer witnessed the turn from cruiser window; video corroborated weaving; credibility is for trial court | Dashcam didn’t show the full turn so testimony is unreliable | Trial court’s factual findings (crediting officer) were supported by competent, credible evidence |
| Weaving/straddling as basis for reasonable suspicion of OVI | Drifting, weaving within lane, and speed changes support reasonable suspicion of impaired driving | Swerves were minor; not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion | Considering the totality of circumstances, officer had at minimum reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. State, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (trial court resolves factual issues at suppression hearings)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative stop standard)
- Bowling Green v. Godwin, 110 Ohio St.3d 58 (2006) (Fourth Amendment and Ohio Constitution prohibit unreasonable auto stops)
- Hairston v. State, 156 Ohio St.3d 363 (2019) (reasonable-suspicion standard is less demanding than probable cause; totality-of-circumstances test)
- City of Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (minor traffic violations can justify stops)
- Andrews v. State, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (totality-of-circumstances viewed through officer’s perspective)