State v. Elkins, 2017 Ohio 5554

On April 24, 2016 Officer Christian Tussey observed Aaron Elkins drive fast into a Taco Bell parking lot, strike a concrete barrier, sit in the car, circle the building, then make a wide left turn onto a four‑lane State Street and enter the curb lane without signaling.
Tussey stopped Elkins and initially cited a city ordinance (ACO 313.04) relating to lane‑use control signals; the prosecutor later moved to amend to ACO 331.14 (signals before turning) and then to ACO 331.10 (turning into center lane requirement).
Elkins filed a motion to suppress the stop; a suppression hearing was held where the officer testified about the observed conduct and signaling requirements.
The trial court denied the suppression motion, finding the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Elkins based on observed driving behavior (regardless of the exact code section cited).
Elkins pled no contest to Underage Consumption, OVI (breath), and Turning at Intersections, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
The municipal court convictions and sentence were appealed; the appellate court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion	Officer observed traffic violations (wide turn into curb lane, failure to signal) justifying the stop	Elkins: under ACO 331.10(A)(2) officer needed to show it was practicable to turn into the center lane before merging; alleged citation errors undermine suspicion	Court: Officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion based on observed conduct; stop valid despite mis‑cited ordinance
Whether denial of the suppression motion improperly relied on an unfiled or court‑suggested amendment	State argued officer’s observations supported a stop and that any amendment did not control the validity of the stop	Elkins argued the court based denial on an amendment not yet filed and on the court’s suggestion at hearing	Court: Decision rested on factual observations, not on an assumed amendment; timing of amended motion irrelevant to outcome

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (officer’s subjective intent does not invalidate objectively justified traffic stops)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (review of reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations is generally de novo)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (reasonable, articulable suspicion — not probable cause — is the standard for traffic stops)
Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (traffic violation observed by officer establishes constitutional validity of a stop)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (trial judge best positioned to assess witness credibility in suppression hearings)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (weight and credibility of evidence are matters for the trier of fact)
State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (totality of circumstances governs investigative stops)