State v. High, 2017 Ohio 8264

Shortly before 11:00 p.m., officers responded to a welfare/suicide call at a home; Ian High was seated in his truck with the engine running while his wife (intoxicated) went into the home.
Deputy Clinage asked High to turn off his engine; High complied and remained in the truck. Clinage told Sgt. Schmoll he “might want to check” High.
Sgt. Schmoll spoke to High, detected an unspecified odor of alcohol on High’s breath, and High admitted having "a few/couple" beers earlier.
Schmoll asked High to step out, administered standardized field sobriety tests (observing multiple clues), then obtained a breathalyzer showing BAC over the legal limit.
High was charged with physical control while under the influence (R.C. 4511.194). At the suppression hearing, Schmoll was the only witness; the trial court granted High’s motion to suppress the field sobriety and breath test evidence.
The State appealed, arguing Schmoll had reasonable suspicion to conduct the field sobriety tests; the Ninth District affirmed the suppression order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests	Schmoll’s detection of alcohol odor plus High’s admission to drinking and Clinage’s recommendation supplied reasonable suspicion	Odor unspecified in intensity, no other indicia of impairment, no evidence of erratic driving; admission to "a few beers" alone insufficient	Court held no reasonable suspicion based on the facts presented; suppression proper

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings: trial court factual findings entitled to deference; legal conclusion reviewed de novo)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court as trier of fact on suppression)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (appellate courts must accept trial court's factual findings when supported)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (4th Dist.) (de novo review of legal conclusions after accepting trial court facts)
State v. Hunter, 151 Ohio App.3d 276 (9th Dist.) (reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch; officer must articulate specific facts)
State v. Blackburn, 115 Ohio App.3d 678 (7th Dist. 1996) (strong odor plus admission to a few beers supported reasonable suspicion)
State v. Taylor, 3 Ohio App.3d 197 (1st Dist. 1981) (distinguishing drinking from drunken driving: crime requires impairment)
State v. Davis, 140 Ohio App.3d 659 (9th Dist. 2000) (officer must point to specific, articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion)