State v. Jarosz
5 N.E.3d 1102
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- State charged Jarosz with speeding (minor misdemeanor) and operating a motor vehicle under the influence (misdemeanor).
- Trooper Lamm stopped Jarosz for speeding in a 40 mph zone after pacing from a prior 52 mph estimation in a 45 mph zone and later confirmed 48 mph in a 40 mph zone.
- At the stop, Lamm detected a strong odor of alcohol from the car and observed Jarosz’s glassy eyes, prompting further investigation.
- Jarosz was ordered to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests; he was then arrested after failing or performing the tests.
- A breath test at the station yielded .088; the municipal court granted Jarosz’s motion to suppress, finding the stop unjustified due to lack of credible pacing.
- The appellate court affirmed the suppression ruling, holding that the stop was not authorized because credible evidence did not establish a proper pace, and thus lacked reasonable grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable grounds | State argues pacing established a valid stop for speeding. | Jarosz argues the pacing was not credible and the stop lacked grounds. | Stop unsupported; credible evidence did not establish proper pace. |
| Whether exit of the vehicle for further testing was permissible | Lamm could order exit under Mimms if detained for a traffic violation. | No lawful basis to require exit given no valid stop. | Exit not permissible; no authority after invalid stop. |
| Whether video credibility permissible to overrule trooper testimony | Video corroborates the trooper’s pacing. | Video undermines trooper’s credibility on pacing. | Court properly weighed video and testimony; video credibility supported suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wiesenbach, 2011-Ohio-402 (11th Dist. Portage No. 2010-P-0029) (sufficient basis for field sobriety tests in similar contexts)
- State v. Dierkes, 2009-Ohio-2530 (11th Dist. Portage No. 2008-P-0085) (supports administering tests where impairment indicated)
- State v. Deegan, 2007-Ohio-1122 (7th Dist. Belmont No. 05 BE 18) (stop requires reasonable, articulable suspicion, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Wojtaszek, 2003-Ohio-2105 (11th Dist. Lake No. 2002-L-016) (witness observations of traffic violations support stops)