State v. Spurlock
2013 Ohio 5369
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Trooper Bryan Holden stopped Rubin E. Spurlock after observing lane-change and marked-lanes traffic violations in the early morning hours and following a vehicle too closely behind a semi.
- On approach, the trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol from the vehicle; he separated driver and passenger and isolated Spurlock at the roadside.
- Trooper Holden observed indicators of impairment: bloodshot eyes, six HGN clues, six walk-and-turn clues (including almost walking into traffic), and three one-leg-stand clues; Spurlock refused a portable breath test and was arrested for OVI and refusal.
- Spurlock moved to suppress sobriety-test results, statements, and the trooper’s observations, arguing lack of probable cause and improper administration of field sobriety tests.
- The municipal court denied the motion; Spurlock pleaded no contest to an Elyria municipal OVI charge and appealed the suppression ruling.
- The appellate court affirmed probable cause for arrest but reversed the denial as to admission of field sobriety-test results because the State failed to show the tests were administered in substantial compliance with standardized (e.g., NHTSA) procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest for OVI was supported by probable cause | State: Trooper observed traffic violations, odor of alcohol, performance on sobriety tests and officer observations provided probable cause | Spurlock: Trooper lacked probable cause; test results and observations insufficient | Affirmed: Totality of circumstances (traffic violations, odor, officer observations) provided probable cause to arrest (probable cause upheld) |
| Whether field sobriety-test results were admissible under R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b) | State: Trooper trained per NHTSA and testified to administering tests; results admissible | Spurlock: Tests not shown to be administered in substantial compliance with standardized/NHTSA procedures | Reversed: No competent, credible evidence State met its burden to show substantial compliance; test results suppressed |
| Whether appellant waived challenge to particularity of suppression motion | State: Spurlock failed to particularize noncompliance or cite NHTSA in motion, so State had no burden | Spurlock: State forfeited challenge by not objecting below | Held: State forfeited objection to particularity by failing to raise it in municipal court; cannot rely on that defense on appeal |
| Effect of missing video evidence from record | Spurlock: Absence of stop video undermines trial findings | State: Video was before trial court; appellate record incomplete | Held: Appellant bears burden to include record; missing video leads appellate court to presume regularity and defer to trial court on credibility-related facts (supports affirmance on probable cause) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (court of appeals review standard for motions to suppress and acceptance of trial court fact findings)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause to arrest for OVI)
- State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (noting limits/supersession on aspects of Homan by statute)