2016 Ohio 3518
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- At ~2:30 a.m. Jonathon Richards drove off the interstate and crashed into a tree; three troopers responded and a tow truck was required.
- Trooper Filak smelled alcohol, observed watery/bloodshot eyes and slow speech; Richards said he had two beers (later alleged to be two 24-oz IPAs) and disclosed a prior OVI conviction; he refused medical attention.
- Filak administered three standardized field-sobriety tests: HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg-stand; Filak observed 2/6 HGN clues, 5/8 walk-and-turn clues, and 2/4 one-leg-stand clues and arrested Richards.
- Richards moved to suppress the field-sobriety-test results, his statements, and officer observations; the trial court granted suppression of all three tests, found no probable cause to arrest, and suppressed post-arrest statements.
- On state appeal, the court reviewed substantial-compliance with NHTSA protocols for each test, whether the arrest was supported by probable cause, and whether Miranda warnings were given.
- Court of Appeals affirmed suppression of the HGN test but reversed suppression of the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests, held there was probable cause to arrest, and found Miranda warnings were given.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richards’s “shotgun” motion required the State to prove specific substantial compliance with NHTSA standards | State: Because motion lacked particularized facts, its burden to prove compliance was only general and slight | Richards: Motion sufficed to put the State to a specific showing | Held: Motion was a shotgun; but defendant elicited facts on cross-exam that required specific responses as to some issues |
| Whether HGN test was performed in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards | State: Trooper substantially complied with HGN protocol | Richards: Officer failed to meet required method (stimulus distance, even movement, speed) | Held: HGN test suppressed for failure to prove substantial compliance |
| Whether walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests were performed in substantial compliance | State: Tests largely complied; video corroborates balance failures and stepping off line | Richards: Conditions (traffic, wind, road dirt) or injury/poor instructions undermined reliability; officer failed to follow some protocol steps | Held: Suppression of these two tests reversed—State met substantial-compliance burden; trial court erred in relying on unsupported speculation about wind/traffic/injury |
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest and whether post-arrest statements were admissible (Miranda) | State: Accumulation of factors (crash severity, odor, red/watery eyes, slurred/slow speech, admissions, prior OVI, FST clues) supplied probable cause; Trooper promptly read Miranda | Richards: Without suppressed FSTs, no probable cause; Miranda not documented on video | Held: Probable cause existed; Miranda warnings were read (Trooper’s testimony corroborated by suspect’s remark), so post-arrest statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard of review for motions to suppress)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (probable-cause standard for OVI arrests)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (de novo review of probable cause legal conclusion)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (prior arrests are material to probable-cause analysis)
- State v. Craig, 110 Ohio St.3d 306 (knowledge of prior arrests relevant to probable cause)
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (clear statement on "clearly erroneous" standard)
- State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272 (credibility and deference to trial court on factual findings)