2019 Ohio 1038
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Officer stopped Ryan Fitzgerald for speeding; during the stop the officer smelled unburnt marijuana.
- Officer detained Fitzgerald and administered field sobriety tests; Fitzgerald was arrested after the tests.
- A urine sample was obtained and later tested positive for a prohibited level of marijuana; Fitzgerald pleaded no contest to that charge.
- Fitzgerald moved to suppress evidence, arguing (1) no reasonable suspicion to detain for sobriety testing, (2) no probable cause to arrest, and (3) noncompliance with procedures for field sobriety testing and urine collection.
- The municipal court denied the suppression motion; Fitzgerald appealed. On appeal, the suppression-hearing transcript was filed but lacked the trial-court appointment certification required by App.R. 9(B) and the local rule, so the court of appeals refused to consider the transcript as part of the record.
- Because the missing transcript was necessary to resolve Fitzgerald’s assignments of error, the Ninth District presumed regularity of the lower-court proceedings and affirmed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Fitzgerald's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Fitzgerald for field sobriety testing | Officer had insufficient evidence of impairment; trial court gave improper weight to evidence of lack of impairment | Officer had grounds (odor of marijuana, observations during stop) to detain and test | Not reached on merits—record deficiency forced presumption of regularity and affirmance |
| Whether officer had probable cause to arrest after tests | Arrest lacked probable cause because tests and observations did not show impairment | Arrest supported by officer’s observations and test results | Not reached on merits—affirmed due to inadequate appellate record |
| Whether field sobriety tests and urine collection substantially complied with required procedures | Procedures for tests and urine collection did not comply with regulations, so evidence should be suppressed | Procedures were sufficiently complied with | Not reached on merits—affirmed because transcript not part of record |
| Whether the suppression-hearing transcript may be considered on appeal | Transcript should be considered though filed by reporter employed by defense counsel | Transcript cannot be considered absent trial-court appointment/ certification under App.R. 9(B) and local rules | Transcript excluded; appellate court presumed regularity and affirmed trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of review for suppression hearings: factual findings upheld if supported by competent, credible evidence; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (2d Dist. 1996) (trial court as factfinder in suppression hearings; credibility determinations)
- State v. Venham, 96 Ohio App.3d 649 (4th Dist. 1994) (deference to trial court’s factfinding at suppression)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (appellant bears duty to provide record; omissions requiring presumption of regularity)
- State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (4th Dist. 1997) (appellate court’s independent legal review after accepting trial-court facts)