State v. Hammen, 2012 Ohio 3628

Ronald P. Hammen was stopped July 22, 2011 by an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper for speeding; charged with two OVI counts and one speeding count.
Appellant moved to suppress all evidence from the stop, challenging the trooper’s pacing method for speed estimation.
Stipulations described video-reported travel of about 2000 feet, 31 seconds for the full distance, and 26 seconds from Ravenna Ave. to the driveway; trooper estimated speed at 54–56 mph with a 45 mph limit.
Trial court overruled the suppression motion, concluding appellant was speeding and that pacing need not maintain a fixed three–four car-length distance to be reliable.
Appellant pled no contest to one OVI and one speeding count; sentenced to jail, driver-intervention program, community service, fines, and license suspension.
Appellant appeals, raising ineffective assistance of counsel and suppression issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for stipulating to trooper testimony?	Hammen claims stipulations prejudiced him by avoiding cross-examination.	Hammen argues stipulations were strategic and not prejudicial.	Stipulations were not prejudicial; no ineffective assistance.
Was there reasonable suspicion for the stop based on pacing evidence?	Speeding determination based on pacing is unreliable.	Stipulations provide specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion.	Reasonable suspicion established; stop lawful.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance standard framework)
State v. James, 2010-Ohio-5411 (Ohio 2010) (stipulations often fall within reasonable trial strategy)
State v. Green, 66 Ohio St.3d 141 (1993) (stipulations can be permissible; credibility matters at suppression)
In re B.M., 181 Ohio App.3d 606 (2009) (uncontested facts and evidence weighing; not per se prejudicial)
State v. Mason-Cowan, 2012-Ohio-1074 (Ohio 2012) (trial court as trier of fact; weigh credibility)
State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142 (1996) (appellate review of suppression findings and legal standards)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality of the circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1981) (articulable facts supporting stop under totality of circumstances)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) ( Fourth Amendment search/seizure principles)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion for investigative stop)
Chatton, 11 Ohio St.3d 59 (1984) (framework for reasonable suspicion in Ohio)