State v. Murray, 2020 Ohio 45

Trooper Hutchinson stopped Murray after observing multiple lane deviations and an unsafe merge while exiting I-75. Dashboard camera recorded the encounter.
On approach, Hutchinson smelled alcohol, observed slow/slurred speech, and received an insurance card misidentified as registration. Murray said he’d been recently hospitalized and was taking a new medication.
Hutchinson removed Murray from the vehicle, observed glossy eyes, and administered the HGN test; he recorded six HGN clues (maximum) and did not administer the walk‑and‑turn or one‑leg‑stand because of Murray’s condition.
Murray was arrested and a blood test at 6:15 p.m. showed BAC 0.151. He was indicted on OVI counts; two prior‑felony counts were dismissed after a mistaken identity issue.
Murray moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion. He pleaded no contest to one OVI count and appealed, arguing (1) the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests and (2) the officer failed to substantially comply with NHTSA HGN standards so there was no probable cause to arrest.

Issue	State's Argument	Murray's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to administer HGN/field sobriety testing	State: driving violations + odor of alcohol + slurred speech + fumbled/misidentified papers + admission re: medication created reasonable suspicion of impairment	Murray: stop did not justify administering HGN; facts insufficient to justify field sobriety testing	Court: Stop was valid for traffic violations; totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion to administer HGN — affirmed
Whether officer had probable cause to arrest given HGN administration allegedly not in substantial compliance with NHTSA	State: officer trained, video corroborates administration, and other indicia (driving, slurred speech, odor, HGN clues) established probable cause	Murray: officer failed to follow NHTSA timing/instruction requirements (too fast, improper instructions), so HGN unreliable and no probable cause	Court: Officer substantially complied (video and testimony); even if one HGN element arguably noncompliant, other HGN clues plus driving, odor, speech, admissions provided probable cause — affirmed

Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression: mixed question of law and fact)
Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-4539, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (Ohio 2008) (traffic stop valid if officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 1996) (even de minimis traffic violation justifies stop)
State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 414 N.E.2d 1044 (Ohio 1980) (totality of circumstances governs investigative stops)
State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165, 2016-Ohio-1581, 74 N.E.3d 319 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review principles for suppression decisions)
State v. Santiago, 195 Ohio App.3d 649, 2011-Ohio-5292, 961 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011) (field sobriety tests require separate reasonable suspicion to administer)