State v. Rubsam
2019 Ohio 2153
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Trooper McCumbers observed Rand Rubsam driving left of center on Wall Road and stopped him on April 2, 2018.
- During/after the stop evidence led to DUI charges (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d)) and a lane-maintenance charge (R.C. 4511.25(A)).
- Rubsam moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion because his conduct could be excused under the exceptions to R.C. 4511.25(A).
- The trial court denied the motion; Rubsam pleaded no contest to DUI and appealed only the denial of the suppression motion.
- The trial court found Rubsam drove down the center of Wall Road, which lacked center/fog lines and was not measured at the hearing, but accepted Trooper McCumbers’ testimony that an ~18-foot estimate was “fair.”
- A divided appellate panel affirmed the denial of suppression; the majority held the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, while the dissent stressed the absence of a finding that the road was a “roadway of sufficient width.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment | Officer observed Rubsam driving down the center of the road; that provided reasonable suspicion to stop for violation of R.C. 4511.25(A) | Rubsam argued his conduct fit statutory exceptions (e.g., obstruction) and the road may not be of “sufficient width,” so no reasonable suspicion existed | Court held the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop for a suspected R.C. 4511.25(A) violation; potential statutory defenses or exceptions need not be resolved before a stop |
| Whether a mistake of fact or law by the officer invalidates reasonable suspicion | N/A (prosecution) | Rubsam suggested officer’s error regarding road width/law undermined the stop | Court applied Heien: reasonable mistakes of law or fact do not automatically invalidate reasonable suspicion if objectively reasonable |
| Whether the absence of an explicit finding that the roadway was "of sufficient width" fatally undermines the stop | Court viewed totality of circumstances (driver centered, road without markings, officer’s estimate) as sufficient | Rubsam emphasized lack of measurement or trial-court finding on width as material and contested credibility of officer’s observations | Majority affirmed without explicit width finding; dissent would reverse for lack of evidence that roadway was sufficiently wide |
| Standard of appellate review for suppression rulings | N/A | Rubsam contended trial-court conclusions were erroneous | Court applied Burnside: accept trial-court factual findings supported by evidence and review legal conclusions de novo; found facts supported the stop |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officer must point to specific, articulable facts to justify investigatory stop)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (vehicle stops are seizures requiring reasonable suspicion or probable cause)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonableness requires totality-of-the-circumstances analysis)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (officer need not resolve possible statutory defenses before initiating stop for lane violation)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (reasonable mistakes of law can support reasonable suspicion)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (reasonableness permits mistakes by objectively reasonable officers)
- State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74 (2001) (reasonableness is the touchstone for Fourth Amendment stops)