2013 Ohio 2831
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- State charged Tarrance with two OVI counts and a window tint violation; Tarrance moved to suppress suppression hearing held; trial court suppressed based on lack of reasonable suspicion; State appeals challenging stop for tint; Trooper Lamm observed a dark passenger window from 40–50 feet away for about 1.4 seconds; testified tint appeared extremely dark and he had training/experience; tint meter later showed 13% on driver’s window; court found stop lacked reasonable suspicion and dismissed charges; appellate court reverses the suppression grant and remands.
- The stop occurred January 20, 2012, in Kent, Ohio, after Tarrance’s car passed Lamm’s cruiser; Lamm believed tint violated law based on experience and the observed darkness; dash-cam video corroborates timing of the stop; officer did not test the passenger window with a tint meter; court relied on statutory/tinted-window standards; local rules require at least 50% light transmittance on side windows.
- Lamm’s testimony that darkness did not impede estimation of tint and his hundreds of prior tint stops supported reasonable suspicion under totality of the circumstances; trial court’s 1.4-second observation and 40–50 feet视 were sufficient for suspicion; the driver’s side window test complemented initial suspicion but was not indispensable.
- Court held the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances and reversed suppression; stop may be based on reasonable belief of a tint violation even if tester later confirms tint; not required to drive alongside vehicle to justify stopping for tint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion for a tint violation. | State: totality of circumstances showed reasonable suspicion | Tarrance: observations too brief and dark to justify stop; no passenger-window test | Yes, reasonable suspicion existed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 114 Ohio App.3d 416 (2nd Dist.1996) (reasonable suspicion for tint stop under brief observation in dark)
- Courts v. State, 2004-Ohio-3789 (2nd Dist.) (stop valid where two officers observed tint and one tested driver’s window; corroborating testimony)
- State v. McNulty, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-097, 2009-Ohio-1830 (11th Dist.) (appellate deference to officer's observations under totality of circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (detention permissible with reasonable suspicion of crime)
- State v. Schmucker, 11th Dist. No. 2008-P-0027, 2008-Ohio-6885 (11th Dist.) (stop valid if based on reasonable belief of violation, even if later mistaken)