State v. Levine
2019 Ohio 265
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Trooper Hutton observed Evan Levine at ~2:00 a.m. make a wide right turn from Second Street onto Putnam Street, initially entering the outer (far) eastbound lane rather than the nearest lane.
- Hutton followed; at a flashing red signal at Third Street Levine stopped with his front tires beyond the clearly marked stop bar (court found the car "straddled the stop bar").
- After turning and being stopped, Hutton observed indicia of intoxication (odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech), conducted NHTSA field sobriety tests (Trooper reported multiple clues), arrested Levine, and breath test showed .176 g/210L.
- Levine moved to suppress, arguing the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause; the municipal court granted suppression despite finding the lane and stop-bar facts and concluding field tests supported probable cause to arrest.
- The State appealed; the Fourth District reviewed de novo whether the officer had objective reasonable suspicion/probable cause to stop based on observed traffic violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wide/right turn into two adjacent eastbound lanes justified stop under R.C. 4511.33/4511.36 | The wide turn into the far lane violated marked-lanes law; even a de minimis lane violation supplies reasonable suspicion/probable cause for a stop | The trial court found the turn did not justify a stop (insufficient to satisfy Fourth Amendment) | Court held the lane departure provided reasonable justification for the stop (assignment I sustained) |
| Whether stopping with front tires beyond/straddling the stop bar at a flashing red signal justified the stop under R.C. 4511.13 | State: a flashing red functions as a stop sign; statute requires stopping at the stop line and stopping with any part of vehicle beyond the line is a violation that justifies a stop | Trial court treated the observed position as insufficient to justify the stop (declined to aggregate observations into a Terry stop) | Court held driver must stop before any portion of the vehicle crosses the stop line; straddling the stop bar supports a stop (assignment II sustained) |
| Whether court must assess officer's belief objectively (reasonable-mistake doctrine) | The officer’s belief was objectively reasonable; reasonable mistakes of law or fact can support reasonable suspicion | Trial court improperly discounted the objective-reasonableness inquiry and relied on skepticism about aggregated observations | Court applied objective-reasonableness (Heien principle) and concluded Hutton’s perceptions were reasonable; assignment III sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mays, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 2008) (officer may stop when reasonably concluding a marked-lanes violation occurred)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (even de minimis traffic violations can justify a stop)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 1996) (minor traffic offenses can justify a stop)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable mistakes of law can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the controlling standard)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (Fourth Amendment allows reasonable mistakes by officers)
- Bowling Green v. Godwin, 850 N.E.2d 698 (Ohio 2006) (existence of reasonable suspicion assessed objectively under totality of circumstances)