State v. Hamilton, 2017 Ohio 8826

On Nov. 25, 2016, Deputy Markley stopped Mitchell Hamilton for a vehicle without a visible license plate on State Route 83.
Upon contact, the deputy detected a moderate odor of alcohol; Hamilton admitted having two beers ~1.5 hours earlier and showed bloodshot, glassy eyes.
Deputy Markley conducted a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test and observed six clues; Hamilton was charged with OVI (R.C. 4511.19) and failure to file annual registration.
Hamilton moved to suppress evidence, arguing the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion to request field sobriety tests; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found the officer credible.
Hamilton pleaded no contest to OVI (A)(1)(a) and failure to file registration; he was convicted and sentenced and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deputy had reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests	Officer observed moderate odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, and bloodshot/glassy eyes — sufficient for reasonable suspicion	Deputy’s observation of bloodshot/glassy eyes was not credible (not recorded until after HGN; no flashlight used), so facts insufficient	Court affirmed: officer's testimony credible; odor, admission, and bloodshot/glassy eyes created reasonable suspicion to justify FSTs

Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations reviewed de novo on appeal)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (appellate review standard for factual findings in suppression hearings)
State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio App.3d 592 (1993) (trial court as factfinder; appellate courts accept findings supported by competent, credible evidence)
State v. Curry, 95 Ohio App.3d 93 (1994) (appellate court independently determines whether facts meet legal standard for suppression issues)
State v. Claytor, 85 Ohio App.3d 623 (1993) (standards for appellate review of suppression rulings)