State v. Lung
2019 Ohio 2962
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On June 29, 2018 Officer Justin Beatty learned during a domestic-dispute call that Brent Lung's driver's license was suspended.
- On July 19, 2018 Officer Beatty saw Lung inside a convenience store, suspected Lung might have driven despite the suspension, and waited in his cruiser without checking dispatch.
- After Lung exited, Beatty observed Lung enter and drive Comberger's car about 100 yards into his apartment lot, then initiated a traffic stop on the suspicion of driving under suspension.
- After the stop Beatty confirmed the suspension, observed signs of intoxication, administered field sobriety tests, arrested Lung, and Lung later refused a breath test at the patrol post.
- Lung was indicted for felony OVI (based on a prior felony OVI), moved to suppress arguing the stop was unconstitutional because it relied on unverified, "stale" information, the trial court denied the motion, and Lung was convicted; he appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Lung's Argument | Beatty/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop unlawful because it rested on unverified/stale information that Lung's license was suspended? | The three-week-old information was stale and should have been verified before a stop; failure to verify made the detention unreasonable. | Three-week-old information was not stale; officer reasonably surveilled and then stopped Lung after seeing him drive; no constitutional duty to verify before observing driving. | The court held the information was not stale, no constitutional duty to verify before seeing Lung drive, and the stop was reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. State, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings: defer to factual findings, review legal conclusions de novo)
- Banks-Harvey v. State, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 (Ohio 2018) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings on suppression)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (traffic stops implicate Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979) (random stops of motorists limited; investigatory stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- State v. Baughman, 192 Ohio App.3d 45 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (reasonable, articulable suspicion is more than a hunch and must be assessed under totality of circumstances)