State v. Forquer
2017 Ohio 7237
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On January 5, 2016, Officer Craig Jones ran a license-plate check on Andrew Forquer’s car and discovered the vehicle registration had expired; Jones initiated a traffic stop.
- When approached, Forquer rolled up the window only after being tapped; Jones immediately detected an odor of alcohol and observed bloodshot, glassy eyes.
- Forquer admitted drinking two beers at 9:45 p.m.; Jones later returned and asked Forquer to activate his hazard lights, which Forquer had difficulty locating.
- Based on odor, appearance, admission of drinking, and the hazard-light fumbling, Jones asked Forquer to exit the car and perform field sobriety tests.
- Forquer moved to suppress, arguing the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests; the municipal court denied the motion. Forquer pled guilty to OVI and expired registration and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Forquer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to request field sobriety tests | Odor of alcohol, glassy/bloodshot eyes, admission of drinking, and fumbling with hazard lights provided articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion | No evidence of impaired driving; facts insufficient (relies on Keserich) | Court: Totality of circumstances (odor + eyes + admission + fumbling) supplied reasonable suspicion; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (general standard that reasonable-suspicion/probable-cause determinations are reviewed de novo)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio standard for types of appellate review of suppression rulings)
- State v. Shepherd, 122 Ohio App.3d 358 (definition of reasonable suspicion as more than a hunch)
- State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56 (officer must have articulable facts to request field sobriety tests)