State v. Hoffman
2017 Ohio 8457
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~1:13 a.m., Deputy Michael Ash responded to a citizen report of a vehicle driving through fields near Havensport Road and found Kimberlie Hoffman’s car stopped on the paved roadway in the complaint area.
- The area was described as rural residential with homes but bordered by fields; the vehicle was stopped with all four tires on the paved travel lane.
- Ash approached, asked if she was okay; Hoffman said she had stopped to send a text and then attempted to pull away.
- Ash activated his cruiser lights after Hoffman began to drive; he noticed slurred speech and investigated for impairment.
- Hoffman was charged with OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)) and parking/stopping on roadway (R.C. 4511.66). She moved to suppress the stop alleging lack of reasonable, articulable suspicion.
- The municipal court denied the motion; Hoffman pled no contest and appealed, arguing the stop was invalid because R.C. 4511.66 does not apply in a residence district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion | Officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate because he found a stopped vehicle in the area of a complaint about a car driving through fields at night | Hoffman argued the location was a "residence district," so R.C. 4511.66 did not apply and the stop lacked lawful basis | Court held the stop was valid: under the totality of circumstances Ash had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations reviewed de novo)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (officer may stop based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (Sup. Ct.) (severity of offense not relevant to reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- City of Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (Ohio 1996) (traffic stop standards under state law)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (officer need only reasonable, articulable suspicion, not probable cause)
- State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 1996) (trial court as factfinder in suppression hearings)
- State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328 (Ohio App.) (mixed question of law and fact on suppression review)
- State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142 (Ohio App.) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings)