State v. Pence
2014 Ohio 5072
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- At ~1:00 A.M. on May 29, 2013, Deputy Brian Beller observed Paul Pence drive over the center line for about two seconds on Dayton Road and initiated a traffic stop.
- On approach, Beller observed glassy, bloodshot eyes, a flushed face, and a moderate odor of alcohol; Pence admitted drinking two beers earlier.
- Pence had difficulty concentrating while producing license/registration, left the vehicle running when exiting, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests.
- Beller arrested Pence for suspected OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)); Pence was also charged with a marked lanes violation (R.C. 4511.33(A)), which was later dismissed under a plea agreement.
- Pence moved to suppress evidence from the stop and tests; the trial court denied the motion. Pence pled no contest to OVI, was convicted and sentenced, and appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the stop and subsequent actions were supported by reasonable/articulable suspicion and probable cause, and overruled Pence’s manifest-weight claim for failure to brief it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pence) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion | Beller observed Pence cross the center line; drifting over lane markings supports a stop under R.C. 4511.33 | Crossing the center line did not create more than a de minimis violation or sufficient suspicion | Held: Stop valid — witnessing drift over lane marking justified stop (reasonable/articulable suspicion) |
| Whether probable cause/suspicion existed to prolong the stop and conduct field sobriety tests | Observations (bloodshot/glassy eyes, flushed face, odor of alcohol), admission of drinking, poor attention, vehicle left running justified further investigation and testing | Deputy lacked sufficient factual basis to prolong the stop and administer sobriety tests | Held: Prolongation and tests justified; combined observations supported arrest for OVI (probable cause) |
| Whether motion to suppress should have been granted for lack of probable cause | Evidence from stop, observations, and poor FST performance provided probable cause to arrest | Evidence was insufficient and tainted by unconstitutional stop/extension | Held: Motion to suppress properly overruled; trial court’s factual findings credited officer’s testimony |
| Whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: evidence (observations, admission, FSTs) supported conviction | Pence: argued judgment against manifest weight (but did not brief or cite record) | Held: Assignment overruled for failure to argue or cite the record; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (officer witnessing motorist drift over lane marking justifies traffic stop)
- State v. Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d 389 (Ohio 2001) (Fourth Amendment and Article I, §14 protections against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (2d Dist. 1996) (trial court as finder of fact on suppression; appellate deference to factual findings)
- State v. Venham, 96 Ohio App.3d 649 (4th Dist. 1994) (credibility and factual-finding principles on suppression review)
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (2d Dist. 1996) (accept factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence)
- Garfield Heights v. Brewer, 17 Ohio App.3d 216 (8th Dist. 1984) (waiver of counsel must affirmatively appear on the record)
- State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2004) (requirements for knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel)
- State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (Ohio 1976) (factors for waiver of counsel and defendant understanding of rights)