State v. Shaffer
2013 Ohio 3581
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- At ~3:00 a.m. Trooper Joe Sisco observed Kimberly Shaffer’s vehicle briefly contact the right-hand white fog lane line; he testified the right fender and outside mirror were over the line for ~3 seconds.
- Trooper Sisco stopped Shaffer for a marked-lanes violation (R.C. 4511.33(A)(1)); he smelled alcohol, observed red/glassy eyes and slurred speech, obtained HGN results (6/6 clues), Shaffer refused other SFSTs and a portable breath test, and he arrested her for OVI.
- Shaffer moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion because the tires merely touched the fog line once.
- The trial court initially overruled suppression without specifically resolving whether the initial stop was justified; a later entry found the stop valid, citing the single touch of the fog line and the 3:00 a.m. time.
- Shaffer pleaded no contest to reckless operation and marked-lanes violation, was sentenced, and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trooper had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop for a marked-lanes violation under R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) | The observed contact with the fog line (tire/fender/mirror over line for ~3 sec) and time (3:00 a.m.) gave reasonable suspicion to stop | Single, brief touching of the fog line (tires did not fully cross) without evidence about practicability or safety is insufficient to justify the stop | Reversed: a one-time, brief touching alone, without evidence about practicability or safety, did not provide reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1988) (defines reasonable, articulable suspicion standard)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of suppression: factual findings afforded deference; legal determinations reviewed de novo)
- State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 2006) (acceptance of trial court’s factual findings when supported by competent, credible evidence)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (reasonable-suspicion analysis considers the totality of factors)
- State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2007) (reasonable-suspicion is based on the collection of factors)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (foundation for stop-and-frisk/ reasonable suspicion standard)