State v. Essad, 2017 Ohio 2913

On Jan. 21, 2015 Benson (driver) and Essad (passenger) passed two Ohio State Highway Patrol cruisers parked in a crossover on the Ohio Turnpike.
Sgt. Neil Laughlin observed the truck abruptly reduce speed, then drift completely over the right lane marker by about a tire width for a few seconds; Trooper Michael Trader noted slow speed and a rigid posture of occupants but turned to speak to Laughlin and did not personally observe the lane drift or sudden braking.
Laughlin exited the crossover and stopped the truck (dashcam did not capture the lane change); Laughlin later asked Trader to deploy a canine; the dog alerted to the truck bed and officers found >200 lbs of marijuana.
Benson and Essad were indicted for trafficking and possession; they filed a joint motion to suppress the evidence from the stop and search.
The trial court granted suppression, finding Laughlin lacked reasonable suspicion and expressing credibility concerns about the troopers and the possibility of pretextual stops.
The State appealed; the Ninth District reversed the suppression order and remanded, concluding the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by competent, credible evidence and thus could not properly resolve the reasonable-suspicion question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Benson/Essad)	Held
Whether Sgt. Laughlin had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the truck	Laughlin observed a lane violation (truck drove over solid white by ~a tire width) and other signs (rapid speed reduction, rigid occupants) that justified investigatory stop	Troopers’ observations were unreliable, partly uncorroborated, dashcam did not show lane change, and trial court should suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion	Reversed suppression: trial court’s factual findings were not supported by competent, credible evidence; remanded for further proceedings (reasonable-suspicion analysis left for trial court on remand)

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard: appellate review accepts trial court’s factual findings if supported by competent, credible evidence; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court best positioned to evaluate witness credibility on suppression hearings)
Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (Terry stop requires specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences therefrom)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may conduct investigatory stop based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (totality-of-circumstances and officer’s training/experience guide reasonable-suspicion analysis)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (officer witnessing a motorist cross lane markings may validly stop vehicle under R.C. 4511.33)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (4th Dist.) (appellate review framework for mixed questions of law and fact on suppression)