2018 Ohio 591
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- At ~2:30 a.m. Trooper Shade followed Howell on I-275 after she approached from behind with high beams on, then dimmed them; he observed brief "bouncing" within her lane but no lane violations or erratic driving.
- Shade slowed to let her pass; she remained behind him, exited the interstate, and he then followed her briefly without witnessing any traffic violation.
- Shade stopped Howell and testified the stop was for failure to dim headlights in violation of R.C. 4513.15.
- Upon contact Shade smelled alcohol, asked Howell about drinking, removed her from the vehicle, administered field-sobriety tests, and arrested her for OVI.
- Trial court denied Howell’s motion to suppress, finding probable cause for a noninvestigatory stop for failing to dim headlights; Howell pled no-contest to OVI and later appealed the final judgment.
- The First District reversed, concluding the stop lacked probable cause and no reasonable articulable suspicion supported an investigatory stop; suppression denial was reversed and case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Howell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop lawful (probable cause) because of a headlight violation? | Trooper lacked statutory basis: R.C. 4513.15 applies to approaching/oncoming vehicles, not a vehicle traveling in same direction. | Trooper reasonably believed Howell violated the dimming statute. | No — officer’s belief was an unreasonable mistake of law; no probable cause for a stop under R.C. 4513.15. |
| If no probable cause, was an investigatory stop justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (DUI)? | Stop was unlawful because facts (minimal "bouncing," time, refusing to pass) did not amount to reasonable articulable suspicion. | The totality (high beams, bouncing, late hour, not passing) gave reasonable suspicion of impaired driving. | No — totality did not yield reasonable, articulable suspicion; investigatory stop not supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression: accept trial court’s factual findings, de novo review of legal application)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (traffic stops are Fourth Amendment seizures; objective reasonableness governs)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness assessed objectively, irrespective of officer’s subjective intent)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (Ohio 1996) (officer’s subjective motive irrelevant if stop is objectively reasonable)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (officer may conduct an investigatory stop on reasonable, articulable suspicion)