State v. Hido
2011 Ohio 2560
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Stacy Hido was clocked at 85 mph in a 65 mph zone on I-70; stop occurred near State Route 54.
- During contact, Sergeant Bush smelled a strong odor of alcohol; Hido admitted no drinking and claimed stepfather spilled beer.
- Hido lacked a driver's license; she was seated in the cruiser while identity verified; odor of alcohol intensified.
- Hido performed three field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand); all were failed.
- An open beer was found underneath the front seat; breath test yielded .117 BAC.
- Defendant pleaded no contest to OVI; other charges dismissed; sentence included jail time, fines, license suspension, probation, and treatment assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest after initial stop? | State argues strong odor of alcohol and observed impairment created reasonable suspicion and probable cause. | Hido argues evidence shows only consumption, not impairment, insufficient for detention for field sobriety tests. | Overruled; facts gave reasonable suspicion and probable cause to arrest after sobering tests. |
| Substantial compliance with NHTSA standards for field sobriety tests? | State asserts testimony satisfied substantial compliance without explicit memorization of every standard. | Hido contends lack of memory and potential noncompliance with NHTSA standards undermines admissibility. | Overruled; substantial, not strict, compliance shown; tests admissible. |
| Detention vs. arrest when Hido sat in cruiser for testing? | State maintains sitting in cruiser for identity verification and HGN testing did not convert detention into arrest. | Hido argues placement in cruiser was an unlawful detention for convenience and tainted by premature custody. | Overruled; no intent to arrest at that stage; probable cause formed after tests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (lawful initial stop; framework for probable cause and detention)
- State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56 (1998) (driving under the influence; admissibility of impairment-based detention)
- State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007) (substantial compliance standard for field sobriety tests)
- State v. Murray, Greene App. No. 2002-CA-10, 2002-Ohio-4809 (2002) (foundation for admission of field sobriety test results; substantial compliance)
- State v. Reed, 2010-Ohio-299 (2010) (testimony can satisfy substantial compliance with NHTSA standards)
- State v. Knox, Greene App. No.2005-CA-74, 2006-Ohio-3039 (2006) (NHTSA standards applicability; officer testimony suffices)
- State v. Fritz, 2009-Ohio-6690 (2009) (cruiser-based testing and identity verification allowed without converting to arrest)
- State v. Dozier, 2010-Ohio-2918 (2010) (detention and cruiser procedures in DUI investigations)
- State v. Barker, 53 Ohio St.2d 135 (1978) (elements of an arrest and custody analysis)