State v. Fickert
2018 Ohio 4349
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- At ~1:00 a.m. on July 1, 2017, Trooper Jason Cadle stopped Sonya Fickert after she flashed an LED light bar while passing his eastbound cruiser on a dark, unlit county road.
- Cadle testified the LED flash briefly blinded him and that he stopped Fickert for violating Ohio’s failure-to-dim statute, R.C. 4513.15(A)(1); Fickert testified she flashed once for about a second because the oncoming cruiser had high beams on.
- Cruiser dash-cam video confirmed the roadway conditions and showed a single, brief flash of Fickert’s LED bar.
- The municipal court granted Fickert’s motion to suppress, finding the momentary flash did not create the visual impairment that R.C. 4513.15 targets.
- The State appealed, arguing Cadle had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Fickert because he was blinded by the LED flash; the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding an officer’s reasonable belief (including reasonable mistakes of law) that a violation occurred can supply reasonable suspicion and remanding for the trial court to resolve credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trooper Cadle had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Fickert under R.C. 4513.15 for failure to dim headlights | Cadle was temporarily blinded by Fickert’s LED flash; that produced reasonable suspicion to stop for failure to dim | The flash was momentary (about a second) and did not produce the level of visual impairment the statute prohibits; stop therefore unlawful | Reversed. An objectively reasonable officer belief that a statutory violation occurred (even if mistaken) can support reasonable suspicion; remanded for the trial court to decide whether to credit Cadle’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes that brief investigatory stops are Fourth Amendment seizures requiring reasonable suspicion)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (vehicle stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can provide the reasonable suspicion necessary for a stop)
- State v. Woods, 86 Ohio App.3d 423 (1993) (holding that a momentary flick onto high beam may not constitute a violation of Ohio’s dimming statute)
- City of Westlake v. Kaplysh, 118 Ohio App.3d 18 (1997) (describing the safety purpose of R.C. 4513.15 to prevent unnecessary visual impairment)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (recognizing that a stop may be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of a traffic violation)