State v. Ramos
2022 Ohio 886
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- At ~3:00 a.m. a caller reported a reckless vehicle weaving on U.S. 23; Trooper Dyer located a matching Ford Mustang and followed it for ~½ mile.
- The Mustang exited, made another turn toward reentering U.S. 23, then pulled completely off to the right on an entrance ramp and stopped partially over the fog line; Trooper Dyer activated overhead lights ~1:20 after first seeing the car.
- Dyer observed bloodshot, constricted/droopy eyes, talkative and erratic/herky-jerky movements; no odor of alcohol; PBT later read 0.000.
- Dyer administered field sobriety tests: HGN could not be completed (eyes drooped), walk-and-turn (5/8 clues), one-leg stand (3/4 clues), modified Romberg indicated abnormal balance; Dyer suspected stimulant use and arrested Ramos; urine later showed amphetamine/methamphetamine.
- Ramos moved to suppress evidence (denied); the State dismissed the under-the-influence OVI count the morning of trial; jury convicted on two per-se OVI counts; Ramos appealed raising three issues: suppression, State’s nolle prosequi, and a supplemental jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Motion to suppress: was the stop/detention/arrest lawful? | Stop was reasonable as a safety-related seizure given the late-hour complaint, erratic driving, slow speed, exit maneuvers, and vehicle stopped on ramp; signs on contact justified expanding investigation; SFSTs provided probable cause to arrest. | Encounter was non-consensual; no reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize or prolong detention; arrest lacked probable cause. | Affirmed: even if not consensual, safety-related reasonable suspicion justified brief seizure; additional observations supported reasonable suspicion to investigate OVI; SFST performance supported probable cause to arrest. |
| 2) State’s dismissal (nolle prosequi) of under-the-influence charge day of trial | Dismissal was permitted under Crim.R.48/R.C.2941.33 for good cause (simplify jury issues; per-se counts pending); chambers discussion satisfied open-court requirement. | Dismissal was tactical to exclude the cruiser video (exculpatory evidence) and thwart defense. | No abuse of discretion: court may infer good cause; existence of per-se counts provided legitimate basis; no evidence of improper motive. |
| 3) Supplemental jury instruction after juror disturbance | Trial court has discretion to address juror-room disturbances; instruction was neutral and largely reiterated prior charges. | Court deviated from Howard instruction and failed to inform jury it could be discharged if deadlocked, causing prejudicial/plain error. | No plain error: record did not show the jury was deadlocked or required a Howard charge; supplemental remarks were permissible and duplicated prior instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (suppression-hearing standard: accept trial court factual findings; review legal conclusions de novo)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (automobile stops reviewed for objective reasonableness)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable, articulable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality-of-circumstances; officers may draw on training/experience)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1981) (reasonable-suspicion inquiry uses totality of circumstances)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (detention must be no longer than necessary to effectuate purpose)
- State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1989) (approved supplemental instruction for deadlocked juries)
- State v. Hawkins, 158 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2019) (clarifies level of suspicion required for investigative stops)