State v. Roetzel, 2012 Ohio 4898

Roetzel appeals the Ashland County Municipal Court's suppression ruling after a February 6, 2012 order overruling his motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop and arrest.
Trooper Carr observed Roetzel driving slowly and crossing the center line on Mifflin Avenue, a 35 mph zone.
Roetzel and his girlfriend smelled of alcohol; Roetzel admitted drinking several beverages and had slurred speech, red eyes, and a strong odor of alcohol emanating from him.
Roetzel performed standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand) allegedly in compliance with OPOTA/NHTSA guidelines; results supported impairment.
The trooper arrested Roetzel for O.V.I. based on observed driving, odor, admissions, and field sobriety results; Roetzel moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop and arrest.
The trial court denied suppression; Roetzel was convicted of O.V.I. and the court sentenced him; on appeal, the issue is whether the stop and arrest were supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion	Roetzel	Roetzel	Stop supported by reasonable suspicion

State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328 (4th Dist. 1998) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; mixed question of law and fact)
State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148 (1996) (body of law on suppression review and credibility)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (privacy expectations and warrant exception framework)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop based on reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of the circumstances standard for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St.3d 59 (1984) (articulable facts sufficient for stop under Ohio law)
Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (de minimis traffic violations can sustain a stop under certain circumstances)
State v. Bangoura, 2009-Ohio-3339 (5th Dist. No. 08 CA 95) (de minimis violations can justify a stop when corroborated by other impairment evidence)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (drift over lane markings can justify stop under R.C. 4511.33)
State v. Crowe, 2008-Ohio-330 (5th Dist.) (reasonable suspicion supports stopping for traffic-related observable conduct)
State v. Ryan, 2003-Ohio-2803 (5th Dist.) (NHTSA standards foundations for admissibility of SFSTs)
State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007) (HGN admissibility with substantial compliance and proper foundation)
State v. Smole, 2011-Ohio-6655 (5th Dist.) (probable cause supported by combined evidence independent of BOCZAR issue)