2019 Ohio 3057
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. on a Saturday, Trooper Loren J. Lee paced and stopped David Raybould for speeding (54 mph in a 45 mph zone) after observing 30 seconds of weaving within his lane.
- On contact, Lee smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol; Raybould admitted drinking four beers and said he had been at a bar.
- Lee administered NHTSA-type field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, vertical gaze) in a lighted school parking lot and reported multiple ‘‘clues’’ of impairment on HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand.
- Raybould moved to suppress the field sobriety-test evidence and later pleaded no contest to operating a vehicle under the influence (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)); sentence was stayed pending appeal.
- Raybould argued (1) improper administration of the field sobriety tests requiring suppression, and (2) the trial court erred in excluding a Portable Breath Test (PBT) result of 0.074 that he claimed undermined probable cause for testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the field sobriety tests should be suppressed for noncompliance with NHTSA standards | State: Trooper Lee administered tests in substantial compliance; his general testimony and the NHTSA manual suffice | Raybould: Trooper was inexperienced and administered tests inconsistently with NHTSA (specific complaints re: HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand) | Court: Trooper’s general testimony and detailed descriptions showed substantial compliance; suppression denied |
| Whether the totality of circumstances provided probable cause to arrest for OVI | State: Erratic driving, odor of alcohol, admissions, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and poor FST performance support probable cause | Raybould: PBT within legal range (0.074) and facts do not support probable cause | Court: Totality of circumstances established probable cause; arrest lawful |
| Whether the trial court erred in excluding the PBT result from evidence | State: PBT not necessary to justify requesting FSTs; officer had articulable suspicion regardless | Raybould: PBT showing legal-range BAC would negate reasonable suspicion/probable cause | Court: Even assuming PBT admissible, officer had independent specific articulable facts to justify FSTs; issue deemed moot as PBT would not change result |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of suppression: trial court factual findings entitled to deference; mixed question of law and fact)
- State v. Bish, 947 N.E.2d 257 (Ohio App. 2010) (general testimony can establish substantial compliance with NHTSA absent a specific, particularized challenge)
- State v. Evans, 711 N.E.2d 761 (Ohio App. 1999) (factors for assessing reasonableness of requesting field sobriety tests and totality-of-circumstances approach)