State v. Pullin, 2020 Ohio 787

At ~1:00 a.m. on March 3, 2019, Deputy Alan Raber observed Parnell Pullin's vehicle near the Brick House bar and began pacing it with his cruiser because it appeared to be exceeding the 35 mph limit.
While pacing, Raber used his cruiser’s speedometer and observed Pullin's speed increase from 36 to 39 mph as Pullin approached the bar (an area with significant pedestrian traffic).
Raber ran the plate and found Pullin was the registered owner and had a suspended license; upon approaching the vehicle Raber detected a strong odor of alcohol and arrested Pullin for speeding, OVI, and driving under suspension.
Pullin moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because pacing/visual speed estimation is invalid under R.C. 4511.091.
The municipal court denied the motion to suppress; Pullin pled no contest, was convicted, and appealed, raising one assignment of error challenging the stop.
The appellate court affirmed: it acknowledged the trial court cited some superseded case law but found the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion because the officer used pacing with his cruiser’s speedometer (a device) and other objective facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pacing (officer following and using cruiser speedometer) supplied reasonable articulable suspicion to stop for speeding	State: Pacing with the cruiser’s speedometer provided objective evidence officer was following and confirming speed, supporting a stop	Pullin: Post-enactment of R.C. 4511.091, unaided visual estimates (and analogous pacing) cannot justify stops; trial court relied on superseded law	Held: Pacing using the cruiser’s speedometer is not an unaided visual estimate here; combined facts (speeds 36→39 mph in a 35 zone near pedestrians) gave reasonable suspicion, so stop valid
Whether reliance on precedent superseded by statute prejudiced the suppression ruling	State: Trial court’s factual findings are supported; even if some precedent cited is superseded, the ultimate legal conclusion is correct	Pullin: Trial court erred by relying on cases overruled by statute (R.C. 4511.091) and thus stop must be suppressed	Held: Although trial court cited some superseded cases, the appellate court independently reviewed and concluded the stop was lawful on the facts; assignment overruled

State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (standard for appellate review of trial-court factual findings on suppression)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable suspicion justifies investigative stop)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations reviewed de novo)
City of Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5 (2010) (pre-R.C. 4511.091: unaided visual speed estimation can support speed conviction)
State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (totality-of-circumstances test for investigative stops)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (stop is valid if prompted by reasonable, articulable suspicion)