2015 Ohio 358
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Around midnight on March 10, 2013, Officer Justin Harvey stopped George Snow for speeding (67 mph in a 55 mph zone). Officer smelled alcohol and observed bloodshot, glassy eyes. Snow admitted drinking two beers, one about 30 minutes before the stop.
- Officer Harvey administered standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk‑and‑turn, one‑leg‑stand); Snow was arrested after poor performance on those tests and transported for a BAC DataMaster test, which read .094.
- A mason jar containing an alcoholic beverage was found in the back seat after Snow’s vehicle was moved.
- Snow moved to suppress evidence; the trial court suppressed the field sobriety test results (State failed to show substantial compliance with testing standards) but found probable cause to arrest and that the BAC operator was certified.
- Snow pleaded no contest to OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)); other charges were dismissed. He was sentenced (jail, probation, fine, license suspension) and appealed raising two assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Snow) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not specifically moving to suppress field sobriety tests for lack of reasonable suspicion | Counsel’s suppression motion broadly challenged the stop/detention and sought suppression of field sobriety tests; the State contended counsel’s performance was not deficient and no prejudice shown | Counsel failed to specifically challenge reasonable suspicion for FSTs, constituting ineffective assistance | Not ineffective: motion broadly encompassed detention and succeeded in suppressing FST results; record did not show a winning motion would have been a given under the totality of circumstances |
| Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest for OVI | Officer had observations (speeding, odor, admission of drinking, bloodshot/glassy eyes, poor performance on FSTs) that—taken together—established probable cause | Snow argued lack of probable cause to arrest; trial court erred in denying suppression of arrest | Probable cause existed: considering totality of circumstances and officer’s admissible observations (even if FST results suppressed), arrest was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Mundt v. Ohio, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brown v. Ohio, 115 Ohio St.3d 55 (2007) (presumption of effective assistance; defendant must show reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Madrigal v. Ohio, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (1999) (failure to file suppression motion not per se ineffective assistance)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (reasonable suspicion standard—specific, articulable facts; totality of circumstances)
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression: accept trial court factual findings, review legal conclusions de novo)
- State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (officer’s observations from non‑scientific field sobriety tests admissible for probable cause even if tests/results are suppressed)