State v. Gladman
2014 Ohio 2554
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Gladman was charged with OVI, operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of alcohol, and a marked lane violation after a May 2012–October 2012 incident.
- On Oct. 13, 2012, Sgt. Barnhart observed Gladman’s truck repeatedly crossing the white edge line (8–10 times) over about two miles after leaving a bar at ~2:00 a.m.
- The officer stopped Gladman, noting he activated a turn signal for ~10 seconds but did not turn, prompting the traffic stop.
- Upon contact, Gladman’s eyes were glassy, speech slurred, and he had a moderate odor of alcohol; he admitted drinking three beers at the Horseshoe Bar.
- Gladman failed all three field sobriety tests after being asked to exit the vehicle, and he was arrested for OVI.
- At the jail, Gladman consented to a breathalyzer, registering a .149 BAC on two attempts; later, he pled no contest to OVI A1 and the other charges were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Gladman contends there was de minimis traffic violation and no DUI suspicion. | Gladman argues the stop was unlawful without articulable suspicion of DUI. | Stop supported by reasonable suspicion from lane violations and delay in signaling. |
| Is the breathalyzer evidence admissible if improperly administered? | Gladman asserts improper breath test procedures should exclude results. | Breath test issues are not required to prove OVI A1; moot after no contest plea to A1. | Breathalyzer results moot to sustain A1 conviction; issues on admissibility rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes reasonable suspicion standard for stops)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (pretext-based stop allowed if traffic violation observed)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (enumerates totality-of-circumstances approach in stops)
- State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (2d Dist. 1996) (trial court credibility findings upheld on suppression)
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (2d Dist. 1994) (framework for appellate review of suppression decisions)