2019 Ohio 124
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Troopers stopped Benjamin Trout after observing his vehicle "bear right" onto East National Drive without signaling during late-night traffic on December 9, 2017.
- Troopers cited Trout for multiple offenses including a signal violation (R.C. 4511.39) and OVI/breath-alcohol offense; Trout moved to suppress evidence from the stop.
- The trial court found Trout did not commit a signal-required "turn," but denied suppression anyway, concluding the officers reasonably (objectively) but mistakenly believed a signal was required under Heien v. North Carolina.
- Trout pled no contest to operating with a prohibited breath-alcohol concentration; sentenced and then appealed challenging the denial of suppression as a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The Fifth District held the roadway curvature was not a statutory "turn," the statute is unambiguous, and the officers’ legal mistake was not objectively reasonable; conviction vacated and case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion because Trout failed to signal in violation of R.C. 4511.39 | Officers reasonably believed Trout failed to signal a required turn, so the stop was lawful | Trout argued he did not make a "turn" under the statute and thus no signal violation occurred, making the stop unconstitutional | Court: No signal was required; officers did not observe a traffic infraction |
| Whether an officer's mistaken interpretation of an unambiguous traffic statute can supply reasonable suspicion under Heien | State contended Heien permits suppression to be denied when an officer reasonably (objectively) misunderstands the law | Trout argued Heien does not justify mistakes of law when the statute is unambiguous and an objectively reasonable officer would not have thought a violation occurred | Court: Heien does not excuse misreading an unambiguous statute; officers’ mistake was not objectively reasonable |
| Whether R.C. 4511.39 is ambiguous as applied to a vehicle continuing on a curved roadway | State argued the situation was ambiguous and a reasonable officer could think a signal was required | Trout argued the statute plainly requires signaling only for a "turn" and continuous travel on National Drive was not a turn | Court: Statute is unambiguous; continuous travel on the curved roadway is not a "turn" requiring a signal |
| Remedy: Whether evidence should be suppressed and conviction vacated | State implicitly argued suppression was unwarranted because the stop was reasonable | Trout sought suppression and vacatur of conviction based on illegal stop | Court: Suppression warranted; conviction vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (officer's reasonable mistake of law can, in limited circumstances, justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (2008) (stop prompted by reasonable, articulable suspicion of traffic violation is constitutionally valid)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (1996) (an observed traffic violation supplies probable cause for a stop)
- State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 661 N.E.2d 1030 (1996) (deference to trial court fact-finding in suppression hearings)