State v. Macklin
2018 Ohio 2975
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- At ~4:10 a.m. officer Bontrager found Corey Macklin beside a vehicle with heavy front-end damage, deployed airbags, and tire tracks through a creek; vehicle was disabled.
- Macklin said she might have a broken axle and maybe fell asleep; she wore slippers/"bed clothes," said she had worked at Tim Hortons and was tired.
- Officer observed droopy eyes, dilated pupils, occasional slurred speech, swaying/poor balance, and an unusually nonchalant attitude; officer did not detect odor of alcohol.
- Officer asked Macklin to perform field sobriety tests and then arrested her; a pipe and plant material were later found during inventory/search.
- Trial court granted Macklin’s motion to suppress, holding the crash alone (and absence of alcohol odor) did not give reasonable suspicion to expand the investigation to an OVI.
- State appealed; the appellate court reviewed de novo whether the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to request field sobriety tests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand crash investigation into an OVI inquiry and require field sobriety tests | The totality of circumstances (early hour, severe off-road crash, deployed airbags, droopy/dilated eyes, slurred speech, swaying, nonchalant demeanor, inconsistent statements) gave reasonable suspicion to suspect impairment | The crash alone (and lack of alcohol odor or admission of recent drug use) was insufficient to justify expanding the detention into an OVI investigation | Reversed: court held the totality of facts provided reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct field sobriety testing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328 (4th Dist. 1998) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 1996) (trial court as factfinder on suppression; credibility determinations)
- State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142 (4th Dist. 1996) (accept factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence)
- State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37 (4th Dist. 1993) (appellate courts independently review legal conclusions on suppression)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (manifest-weight standard when challenging factual findings)
- State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App.3d 486 (4th Dist. 1991) (standards for challenging suppression findings)
- State v. Curry, 95 Ohio App.3d 93 (8th Dist. 1994) (appellate court independently determines whether facts meet legal standard)
- State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable-articulable-suspicion inquiry uses totality of circumstances and not isolated factors)