State v. Filip
2017 Ohio 5622
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Nov. 26, 2014, Theodore Filip was stopped after his vehicle drifted over the fog line; officer smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes and slurred speech, and Filip admitted to having had a drink.
- Officer Brett Harrison administered HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg-stand tests at the scene; Harrison observed multiple "clues" on each test and concluded Filip was impaired.
- Filip performed poorly (per officer) on the tests; at the station he did not produce valid breathalyzer results and the machine recorded a refusal; Filip had a prior 2003 DUI conviction.
- Filip moved to suppress, arguing noncompliance with NHTSA standards (lighting in HGN; administering tests despite knee surgeries) and lack of probable cause; the trial court denied the motion.
- Jury convicted Filip of OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)), a prior-offender refusal charge (R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)), and a marked lanes violation; he appealed raising six assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer substantially complied with NHTSA standards for field sobriety tests | State: Harrison substantially complied and may testify to results | Filip: Tests not in substantial compliance (improper HGN illumination; should not have done walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand given knee history) | Affirmed: Record on appeal incomplete (manual and suppression hearing video missing); presumption of regularity supports denial of suppression |
| Whether officer had probable cause to arrest for OVI | State: Totality (weaving/ fog-line crossing, odor, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, poor SFST performance, admission, refusal) supports probable cause | Filip: Driving indicators (use of turn signal, no stumbling exiting vehicle) weigh against probable cause; crossing fog line was minor | Affirmed: Totality of circumstances provided probable cause; trial court viewed unrecorded video so ruling stands |
| Admissibility of officer testimony correlating SFST clues to BAC probabilities | State: Officer may testify to observed SFST clues and associated statistical probabilities | Filip: Such probability testimony is speculative and requires expert foundation; admission misleading | Affirmed: Although court was "troubled," no prejudicial error shown; defense elicited limitations on cross and jury instructed on impairment vs. BAC |
| Whether evidence was sufficient / verdict against manifest weight | State: Witness observations, SFST results, admission, odor, refusal suffice | Filip: Evidence shows sober behaviors; SFST limitations; medical/knee/mouth issues explained performance | Affirmed: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, sufficient to convict; not an exceptional case to overturn weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (mixed questions of law and fact on suppression; appellate review standard)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (trial court as factfinder on suppression credibility)
- State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (appellate court independently reviews legal conclusions on suppression)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (probable cause standard for OVI under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (manifest-weight review standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (appellate role when reversing on manifest weight)