State v. Smith
2014 Ohio 712
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Nov. 6, 2012 a Franklin County grand jury indicted Gino M. Smith for possession of marijuana and cocaine after police stopped his car for an alleged failure to signal in violation of Columbus City Code 2131.14(a).
- Smith had been parked ~20–30 feet west of the Duncan–High Street intersection, pulled into traffic, stopped at the stop sign, then activated his turn signal and turned onto High Street.
- Officers observed Smith stop at the stop sign and only then activate his signal; they did not observe how far he had been driving before the stop.
- Smith moved to suppress the drugs found during the stop, arguing the officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion because it was impossible for him to have signaled continuously for 100 feet before turning given his proximity to the intersection.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Smith pleaded no contest and was convicted. On appeal, Smith challenged (1) a clerical error listing his plea as "guilty" and (2) the denial of his suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment entry misstates the plea | State concedes the entry is erroneous | Smith: entry says "guilty" though he pleaded no contest | Court: clerical error — remand to correct to no contest |
| Whether officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Smith for failing to signal | Officers observed Smith fail to signal continuously for 100 feet before turning, supporting reasonable suspicion to stop under C.C.C. 2131.14(a) | Smith: because he had been parked <100 feet from the intersection, it was impossible to comply with the 100-foot continuous-signal requirement, so no violation occurred and no reasonable suspicion existed | Court: viewing totality of circumstances, officers reasonably suspected a signal violation because they saw Smith not signal until after stopping; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (random stops require constitutional scrutiny; traffic stop is a seizure)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (reasonable suspicion required to stop for traffic violation)
- State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (2006) (appellate review of mixed question of law and fact on suppression)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (trial court as factfinder on suppression; appellate courts accept factual findings if supported)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (totality-of-circumstances and officer perspective in evaluating reasonable suspicion)