State v. Greaves
2014 Ohio 2446
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Greaves stopped around 4:00 a.m. after a DUI hotline report and observed swerving and straddling lines.
- Cadle detected a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot glassy eyes, and slight disorientation on Greaves.
- Greaves admitted drinking earlier, exited the vehicle without obvious impairment, and performed three standardized field sobriety tests.
- HGN showed six clues, one-leg stand had four clues, walk-and-turn had three clues; Cadle testified to NHTSA standards.
- Parson, on medical leave, reviewed the video and opined on NHTSA standards but was not allowed to render an expert opinion on “substantial compliance.”
- The trial court ruled there was substantial compliance with NHTSA standards and denied suppression; Greaves pleaded no contest to one count of OVI; sentence imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether field-sobriety tests were properly admitted | Greaves argues lack of reasonable suspicion to test | Greaves contends no valid basis for tests existed | Tests upheld; reasonable suspicion existed |
| Whether Parson could testify as an expert on substantial compliance | Greaves argues Parson should testify on substantial compliance | Proffered expert testimony should be excluded | Exclusion not reversible error; harmless if error occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (2007-Ohio-2204) (reasonable suspicion may rely on potentially innocent explanations)
- State v. Patterson, 2009-Ohio-4946 (2009-Ohio-4946) (cannot require exclusion of every innocent explanation)
- State v. Awkal, 76 Ohio St.3d 324 (1996) (expert qualification; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Davis, 2009-Ohio-3759 (2009-Ohio-3759) (substantial-compliance is a legal standard reviewable by court)