State v. Tucker
2017 Ohio 1295
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 12, 2014 Trooper Steven Tucci stopped Alicia Tucker after observing her vehicle cross the center line and weave late at night.
- At the scene the trooper smelled alcohol, observed red/glassy eyes, and asked Tucker to exit and sit in his cruiser; she admitted to one beer and the lane violation.
- Trooper Tucci administered HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg-stand tests and reported multiple indicative clues; Tucker was arrested for OVI.
- Tucker moved to suppress, arguing the stop was unlawful, the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests, and the tests were not given in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards.
- The municipal court denied the suppression motion; Tucker later pleaded no contest to OVI and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the traffic stop | Trooper had reasonable suspicion from lane crossing and weaving to stop vehicle | Stop was for a de minimis violation and thus unlawful | Stop was lawful; minimal left-of-center crossing provided reasonable suspicion (court relied on precedent) |
| Reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests | Totality (lane violation, odor, red/glassy eyes, admission of one beer) gave reasonable suspicion of impairment | Trooper lacked specific articulable facts to justify testing | Court held trooper had reasonable suspicion to administer tests |
| Compliance with NHTSA standards for admitting FST results | State produced trooper testimony about training and stated he followed NHTSA methods | Tucker argued specific noncompliance (no contact-lens question; insufficient medical-questioning for walk-and-turn) | Court found substantial compliance; some issues waived or insufficient to overcome state’s proof |
| Burden to prove substantial compliance | State must show by clear and convincing evidence that tests substantially complied with NHTSA once raised | Defendant argued state failed to meet that burden without the manual in evidence | Court concluded testimony showed substantial compliance and denied suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1988) (reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, is required for an investigatory traffic stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (officer must point to specific and articulable facts to justify a stop)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations reviewed de novo)
- State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2004) (statutory requirement that FST testimony be supported by clear and convincing evidence of substantial compliance with NHTSA standards)
- State v. Hodge, 147 Ohio App.3d 550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002) (observation of a left-of-center traffic violation supports reasonable suspicion to stop)
- Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (standards for appellate review of trial court findings on suppression)