State v. Harlow, 2014 Ohio 864

Harlow was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence after pleading no contest in the Fourth District of Ohio.
Trooper Rogers observed Harlow drift across the white edge line and contact gravel while traveling on State Route 83 in Washington County.
Rogers stopped Harlow; he detected red, glassy eyes and an odor of alcohol, and Harlow admitted to drinking after field sobriety tests.
Harlow moved to suppress, arguing Rogers lacked probable cause to stop; the parties stipulated to a dashboard-camera DVD of the stop.
The trial court found reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the stop and denied the suppression motion.
Harlow appealed, challenging the admissibility of the DVD, the stop’s legality, and related issues including driving privileges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause.	Harlow argues the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause.	Harlow contends the DVD is inadmissible and the stop relies on questionable observations.	Stop supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause; DVD admissible due to defense stipulation.
Whether the DVD’s admission was ineffective assistance by counsel.	Harlow claims counsel erred by stipulating to admissibility and not briefing the issue.	Counsel’s stipulation was strategic and not deficient.	No ineffective assistance; stipulation was a reasonable trial strategy.
Whether the denial of limited driving privileges was an abuse of discretion.	Harlow sought limited driving privileges post-ALS, arguing improper suspension.	ALS terminated upon conviction; no post-conviction driving privileges petition before the court.	No abuse; ALS terminated and privileges not properly before the court.
Whether appellate review should address arguments beyond the assigned errors.	Harlow tries to raise additional challenges via her briefing.	The court confines review to the four assigned errors.	Court limited review to four assignments of error; other arguments not addressed.

State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (2006-Ohio-3665) (suppress-review mixed question of law and fact; deference to trial-court findings)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982-Ohio-437) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008-Ohio-4539) (reasonable articulable suspicion supports stop; related to marked-lane violations)
State v. Keck, 127 Ohio St.3d 550 (2013-Ohio-5160) (stipulations regarding admissibility may waive objections)
State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007-Ohio-1251) ( suppression-hearing evidence rules differ; evidentiary objections bound by record)
State v. Wisby, 2003-Ohio-5834 (1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-020758, C-020759) (ALS vs. criminal punishment; separate proceedings and implications)
State v. Hoover, 123 Ohio St.3d 418 (2009-Ohio-4993) (ALS terminates after DUI conviction; license-suspension consequences)
State v. McPhillamy, 2012-Ohio-3612 (6th Dist. Erie) (ALS and criminal proceedings operate independently; connection to driving-privileges)