State v. Lane
2013 Ohio 2143
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Pace was stopped on I-75 in Findlay, Ohio for speeding; odor of alcohol observed and signs of impairment noted; she performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested for OVI with speeding and expired license citations.
- Trooper Geer testified to signs of impairment, including slurred speech, slow paperwork handling, wine bottles, and an expired license found in LEADS.
- Field sobriety tests were conducted, with HGN inside the car and walk/turn and one-leg stand behind the car; PBT was offered but refused by Pace.
- Trooper Geer testified tests were administered per NHTSA standards; video recording was used for some observations but not for all tests; the dashboard camera did not capture all tests.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion, finding reasonable suspicion for the stop, probable cause for arrest, and substantial compliance with testing standards; Pace was convicted on all counts and appeals.
- The two assignments of error on appeal challenge spoliation of evidence and continued questioning after Pace invoked counsel; the court affirmatively rejects both challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation of evidence requirement | Pace contends Geer willfully destroyed evidence by not video-recording tests. | State argues no duty to videotape; no bad faith; not required by law. | No merit; no duty to video and no bad faith found. |
| Right to counsel invoked | Pace allegedly invoked right to counsel and questioning continued and tests administered. | Record shows no affirmative invocation of counsel; questions about PBT did not trigger counsel rights. | No constitutional violation; invocation not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007) (field sobriety tests admissible when in substantial compliance)
- State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (foundation for testing admissibility; substantial compliance standard)
- State v. Delarosa, 2005-Ohio-3399 (11th Dist.) (no requirement to videotape field sobriety tests; not a constitutional duty to record)
- State v. Wooten, 2002-Ohio-1466 (4th Dist.) (dues process not require recording; no suppression for lack of recording)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due process not violated absent bad faith failure to preserve evidence)
- State v. Smith, 2010-Ohio-1232 (5th Dist.) (discusses Youngblood and preservation of potentially useful evidence)