State v. Unger
2017 Ohio 5553
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 15, 2016, Sgt. Shane Cline observed a 2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer pass his stationary police vehicle three times in 7–8 minutes; on the first pass it moved slowly.
- Cline ran the plate through an electronic database (I-Links) which showed a Chevrolet but a different paint color than the observed vehicle, prompting him to stop the Trailblazer to investigate possible theft/plate switching.
- Upon contact Cline smelled burnt marijuana, a passenger admitted to smoking, and Unger allegedly admitted to smoking earlier; Cline also observed possible drug indicators (yellow-coated tongue, raised taste buds).
- Cline asked Unger to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs); based on observations and FSTs he arrested Unger for OVI and later charged him with driving under a 12-point suspension.
- Unger moved to suppress evidence arguing (1) the initial stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion, (2) the detention for FSTs lacked suspicion, and (3) there was no probable cause to arrest for OVI. The trial court denied suppression; Unger pled no contest and appealed.
- The Fifth District reversed and remanded, holding that a database discrepancy in paint color (especially for a 10-year-old vehicle), even combined with the vehicle passing the officer multiple times, did not supply reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle; evidence from the stop should have been suppressed. Other assignments were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Unger's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle | Discrepancy between vehicle color in database and observed color plus repeated passes by the vehicle justified investigatory stop for possible theft/plate switching | Color discrepancy and repeated passes did not amount to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity | Stop was unconstitutional; color discrepancy (and passing behavior) did not create reasonable suspicion — suppression required |
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Unger for FSTs | Odor of marijuana, admissions of smoking, and observed signs (tongue, taste buds) justified detention for impairment investigation | Initial stop lacked lawful basis, so any subsequent detention was unlawful; observations alone did not establish suspicion of impairment | Moot after resolving stop; but detention would depend on validity of initial stop |
| Whether officer had probable cause to arrest for OVI | Odor, admissions of marijuana use, drug indicators, and FST results provided probable cause to arrest for OVI | Admission of marijuana use (or evidence of use) without proof of impairment does not establish probable cause to arrest for OVI | Moot; concurring judge cautioned that evidence of drug use alone (without impairment) does not necessarily establish probable cause to arrest for OVI |
| Whether suppression remedies require reversal of conviction | Suppression of evidence obtained from unlawful stop justified reversing convictions obtained after no-contest plea | Same | Court reversed and remanded; evidence from and after the stop should have been suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (warrantless stops of motorists require balancing individual privacy against government interests)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police need reasonable, articulable suspicion for investigative stops)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (appellate courts review reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations de novo)