State v. Eytcheson, 2018 Ohio 2036

On May 24, 2017 Officer Shiloh Colon stopped Kelly W. Eytcheson after observing an improper turn and an apparent seatbelt non‑use; she cited him for failure to reinstate a suspended license (R.C. 4510.21) and for failing to wear a seatbelt (R.C. 4513.263).
Eytcheson proceeded pro se to a June 22, 2017 bench trial in Kettering Municipal Court, was found guilty of both charges, fined ($150 suspended for the license count, $30 for the seatbelt count), and appealed.
On appeal Eytcheson raised 15 assignments of error challenging identification (typography of his name), pro se terminology, denial of a jury trial, denial of his motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds (right to travel vs. regulation of driving), evidentiary rulings, Miranda warnings, limits on his closing, exclusion of a chiropractor’s note, mens rea requirements, jurisdictional defects, and alleged judicial/prosecutorial misconduct.
The trial court found Colon observed the improper turn and stopped Eytcheson for that moving violation; seatbelt and license status were established by her testimony and certified driving record.
The appellate court reviewed the assignments (de novo where applicable) and rejected Eytcheson’s constitutional, evidentiary, and jurisdictional claims, affirming the municipal court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Eytcheson)	Held
Right to jury trial	Charges are minor offenses not entitled to jury; statutory limits apply	Entitled to constitutional jury trial for alleged deprivation of rights	Held for State: offenses are minor/misdemeanor classifications; no jury right (R.C. limits)
Motion to dismiss: right to travel vs. driving regulation	State: operating a motor vehicle is a regulated privilege subject to reasonable safety regulation	Eytcheson: driving is a fundamental right to travel; licensure is unconstitutional conversion of right to privilege	Held for State: courts distinguish travel from driving; licensure/registration are legitimate regulatory measures
Miranda / custodial interrogation	Routine traffic stop is noncustodial; Miranda warnings not required for ordinary roadside questioning	Miranda warnings were required; statements should be excluded	Held for State: Berkemer controls; no custody for purposes of Miranda during an ordinary traffic stop
Seatbelt exemption evidence	State: R.C. requires a sworn affidavit from physician/chiropractor for exemption; proffer absent	Eytcheson: offered chiropractor’s statement to show medical exemption under R.C. 4513.263(C)	Held for State: exclusion proper — no sworn affidavit proffered; hearsay and not properly authenticated or proffered

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct.) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (Sup. Ct.) (ordinary traffic stops are noncustodial for Miranda purposes)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 634 (Sup. Ct.) (right to travel jurisprudence discussed)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (Sup. Ct.) (state may not impose charge for enjoyment of a constitutional right)
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (Sup. Ct.) (distinction between rights and privileges; licensing cannot nullify constitutional rights)
State v. Starnes, 21 Ohio St.2d 38 (Ohio S. Ct.) (operation of motor vehicle is a privilege subject to reasonable state regulation)