2020 Ohio 4182
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Early morning traffic stop after trooper observed a vehicle change into the left lane without signaling and pass another car; driver identified as Thomas M. Pallo, Jr.
- Trooper detected odor of alcohol, Pallo had bloodshot/watery eyes; HGN showed 4 of 6 clues; PBT administered; walk-and-turn showed one (nonstandard) clue; one-leg-stand given; trooper arrested Pallo for OVI.
- Pallo was charged with OVI and failure to signal and moved to suppress, challenging the stop, detention, field sobriety tests (including NHTSA compliance), use of a portable breath test (PBT), probable cause for arrest, and voluntariness of statements.
- Municipal court initially granted the motion to suppress without adequate factual or legal findings; this court reversed and remanded, instructing the trial court to articulate its reasoning, identify issues resolved, and state what evidence was suppressed and why.
- On remand the municipal court found the standardized FSTs complied with NHTSA, declined to treat the PBT as admissible, construed a trooper remark as indicating no initial probable cause, concluded the trooper later relied impermissibly on the PBT and nonstandard clues, and again granted suppression.
- This court reversed the municipal court for failing to follow the remand mandate (lack of analysis on the stop, detention, statements, and identification of suppressed evidence), sustained the State’s first assignment of error, and remanded for proper findings; the court deemed the second assignment moot.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Pallo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the municipal court complied with this court's remand instructions | Trial court should have complied and issued specific factual/legal findings resolving the suppression issues | Municipal court acted within discretion in its post-remand ruling | Municipal court abused discretion by failing to follow remand: order reversed and case remanded for articulated findings |
| Whether the trooper had probable cause to arrest for OVI | Probable cause existed based on odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes, HGN results, PBT, and FSTs | No probable cause; arrest improperly based on PBT and nonstandard clues | Not decided on the merits here; appellate court reversed for failure to articulate findings, rendering the second assignment moot |
| Whether a portable breath test may be used in a probable-cause determination | PBT results may inform probable-cause assessment | PBT should not be relied on (municipal court noted ODH no longer recognizes PBT) | Appellate court did not resolve; remanded for trial court to specify what evidence it suppresses and why |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (motion-to-suppress review is mixed question of law and fact; trial court findings of fact afforded deference)
- State ex rel. Stevenson v. Murray, 69 Ohio St.2d 112 (1982) (lower courts must follow the mandate of superior court on remand)