2020 Ohio 6780
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- At ~2:30 a.m. on May 5, 2019, Officer Chandler followed Masin’s vehicle eastbound on Liberty Avenue (a multi‑lane road) for about 0.5–2 miles and observed the vehicle drift across lane markings multiple times.
- Officer stopped the vehicle, smelled alcohol, observed glassy eyes and slurred speech, and removed Masin for field sobriety testing.
- Officer administered HGN (6/6 clues), walk‑and‑turn (3 clues), and one‑leg‑stand (some balance loss); Masin was arrested and later registered .166 BAC on the breath test.
- Masin moved to suppress all evidence arguing (1) the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because lane markings were faded and brief lane movements do not violate marked‑lane law, (2) the officer lacked probable cause to arrest, and (3) the court improperly relied on marked‑lane findings.
- Trial court denied suppression, found the officer credible, and concluded there was reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause to arrest; Masin pleaded no contest to OVI and appealed the suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Masin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle | Officer observed multiple drifts over lane markings and thus had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop for VCO 432.08 (modeled on R.C. 4511.33) | Lane markings were faded; brief movement between lanes is not a marked‑lane violation and facts do not support the officer’s version | Court upheld stop: officer’s testimony credited; drifting across marked lanes supports reasonable suspicion (Mays principle) |
| Whether officer had probable cause to arrest for OVI | Odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and FST performance (HGN, walk‑and‑turn, one‑leg stand) provided probable cause | Body cam does not show slurred speech; challenges to officer’s FST knowledge and FST reliability undermines probable cause | Court found totality (odor, observations, FSTs) sufficient for probable cause. Any admissibility issue with FSTs would be harmless because probable cause existed without them |
| Whether relying on marked‑lane infractions to establish suspicion/probable cause was improper | Marked‑lane violations observed justified stop and supported subsequent observations leading to arrest | Court improperly relied on alleged lane violations given faded lines and witness testimony contradicting officer | Court rejected this claim as duplicative of the other assignments; affirmed that marked‑lane observations legitimately supported the stop and subsequent probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mays, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 2008) (drifting across lane markings can alone justify a traffic stop under R.C. 4511.33)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979) (traffic stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings: accept trial court’s factual findings if supported and review legal conclusions de novo)
- State v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2000) (probable cause to arrest for OVI assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- State v. Batchili, 865 N.E.2d 1282 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable‑suspicion analysis considers the totality of factors, not isolated facts)