State v. Fisher
2017 Ohio 5485
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Around 1:30 a.m., officer Osting saw two vehicles' headlights inside a park that closed at 11:00 p.m.; park gates were closed and she did not know anyone had permission to be there.
- Osting stopped the vehicles to investigate possible trespassing; upon approaching Fisher she smelled alcohol, observed glassy/bloodshot eyes, and Fisher admitted drinking.
- Osting administered HGN, Walk-and-Turn, and One-Leg Stand; Fisher showed indicators of impairment on all three tests and was arrested for OVI.
- Fisher moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because being in the park after hours was not a crime, and contending the field sobriety tests were not properly conducted.
- The municipal court denied the motion; Fisher pleaded no contest, was sentenced, and appealed solely challenging the legality of the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion? | State: Officer reasonably suspected trespass based on closed gates, headlights after hours. | Fisher: No law forbade being in the park after hours, so no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. | Stop upheld: officer reasonably (though mistakenly) believed presence after hours was trespassing; under Heien a reasonable mistake of law can supply suspicion. |
| Can a reasonable mistake of law justify an investigatory stop? | State: Yes; an objectively reasonable mistake can create suspicion. | Fisher: Disputed—stop was invalid because no crime occurred. | Court applied Heien and held a reasonable mistake of law may justify a stop. |
| Were field sobriety tests required to establish probable cause to arrest for OVI? | State: Probable cause may rest on totality of circumstances, not solely on FSTs. | Fisher: Tests were improperly administered and thus could not support probable cause. | Even excluding FST results, other factors (odor, bloodshot eyes, admission of drinking, observed unsteady performance, video) gave probable cause. |
| Was Fisher prejudiced by any noncompliance in administering FSTs? | State: No prejudice; totality of circumstances sufficed for probable cause. | Fisher: Yes—improper testing undermines arrest basis. | Court found no prejudice; probable cause existed regardless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (a reasonable mistake of law can give rise to reasonable suspicion for a stop)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2014) (reasonable, particularized suspicion required for traffic stops)
- City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 1988) (defendant must adequately raise suppression grounds; appellate waiver rule)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 2000) (probable cause for OVI measured by totality of circumstances)