State v. Folan
2019 Ohio 4624
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Officer Ronald DeAmicis, driving westbound on Route 303 around 10:30 p.m., observed Kristina Folan’s vehicle weave three times within its lane (drift right near the fog line/curb, jerk back toward the center line, and drift right again). Tires touched lines and came "within an inch or two" of the curb; tires did not fully leave the lane.
- Folan turned onto Route 42; the officer observed an additional brief drift, activated his lights, and stopped her vehicle. He later charged her with weaving (Brunswick Codified Ordinance 432.34(b)) and OVI counts.
- Folan moved to suppress the stop, arguing the observed movement was momentary drifting (not a weaving/zigzag course) and the dashcam did not record the earlier weaving. The trial court denied the motion after a suppression hearing; Folan pleaded no contest and appealed.
- The officer testified the dashcam did not record the earlier weaving because the system only saves video starting one minute before overhead lights activation; his live testimony detailed the three drifts. The trial court credited his testimony.
- The majority affirmed, holding the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle (weaving within a lane can justify a stop). A dissent argued that momentary drifting within a lane is insufficient and would remand to consider the totality of circumstances (including dispatch information).
Issues
| Issue | Folan's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Folan for weaving/zigzagging | The observed movements were momentary "drifting" within the lane, dashcam lacked footage, and such isolated movement does not support reasonable suspicion | Officer observed multiple distinct drifts touching lane lines and nearly striking the curb; dashcam limitations explain absence of footage; weaving within a lane can justify an investigatory stop | Court accepted officer's credible testimony, found reasonable suspicion to stop for alleged ordinance violation, and affirmed suppression denial (majority); dissent would remand to consider totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (appellate courts accept trial-court factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence in suppression hearings)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (officer must point to specific, articulable facts and rational inferences to justify an investigative stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Terry-stop standard for reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (a stop is valid if officer has reasonable suspicion of any criminal or traffic violation)
- State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37 (1993) (weaving within a lane can justify an investigatory stop)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (stop valid if prompted by reasonable, articulable suspicion considering all circumstances)