State v. Starks, 2016 Ohio 5872

Late-night traffic stop after Trooper Colbert observed Aaron Starks driving at high speed in downtown Dayton and then on U.S. 35; Colbert estimated speeds up to ~60 mph in a 35 mph zone and testified he had to accelerate to over 100 mph to keep pace before the suspect slowed to ~80 mph in traffic.
Colbert stopped the vehicle and observed odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, slurred speech, and unsteadiness when Starks exited the car (stumbled into and leaned on officer).
Colbert administered three field sobriety tests: alphabet recitation (errors/slurred speech), horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) with 6/6 clues, and the one-leg stand (terminated for safety after Starks nearly fell).
Starks was arrested and a breath test showed BAC of .229. He was charged with OVI and Speeding, moved to suppress, lost the suppression hearing, pled no contest, and was convicted and sentenced (appeal followed).
On appeal Starks argued (1) the field sobriety tests were not in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards (so arrest lacked probable cause) and (2) the traffic stop was unjustified because pacing/visual estimation of speed was inadequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the field sobriety tests administered in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards?	Colbert performed tests consistent with his training; results valid and admissible.	Starks argued deviations (e.g., instructions, HGN warnings, one-leg-stand wording) violated NHTSA substantial-compliance requirement, invalidating results.	Court found credible testimony that tests substantially complied with NHTSA; deviations did not undermine results; arrest supported.
Was the traffic stop justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion/probable cause for speeding?	Trooper’s pacing using his cruiser speedometer and training showed Starks was grossly exceeding the limit; stop justified.	Starks argued pacing/visual estimate was insufficient (too little distance/time; case law requires more) and visual estimation lacked certification.	Court held pacing here (including testimony that suspect pulled away until cruiser reached >100 mph and later slowed to ~80) provided sufficient basis for finding speeding and justified the stop.

Long v. State, 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 713 N.E.2d 1 (discussing mixed questions of law and fact in suppression review)
Treesh v. State, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 739 N.E.2d 749 (trial court as factfinder entitled to credibility determinations at suppression hearing)
Dunlap v. State, 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 652 N.E.2d 988 (appellate deference to trial court findings of fact on suppression)
DeHass v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (credibility determinations are within trial court’s peculiar competence)