2021 Ohio 1443
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On Feb. 23, 2020 Watkins went to the State Highway Patrol post to pick up a friend (M.S.) arrested for OVI; she entered the post voluntarily.
- Trooper Kiefer observed Watkins inside the post at ~3:00 a.m., noticed bloodshot/glassy eyes and an odor of alcohol, and asked whether she had been drinking; she said she had one drink at ~6:30 p.m. the prior evening.
- Kiefer administered a portable breath test (PBT) that read .117, then conducted field sobriety tests (HGN 6/6; walk-and-turn 4 clues; one-leg stand 2 clues; some initial difficulty on alphabet), and obtained an evidentiary breath result of .114.
- Watkins moved to suppress the PBT, field sobriety, and breath results; the trial court denied suppression, she pleaded no contest, was convicted and sentenced, and appealed.
- The Sixth District reversed, holding the trooper lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain and request the sobriety tests during the initially consensual encounter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable, articulable suspicion existed to detain Watkins and administer field sobriety and breath tests during a consensual encounter | Trooper Kiefer had multiple indicia (time ~3:00 a.m., odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, Watkins’s admission she drank, and the PBT result) supporting reasonable suspicion | Odor strength unspecified; eyes could be from crying/fatigue; admission was one drink many hours earlier; no slurred speech, stumbling, or other impairment signs | No. The court held the observations were insufficient to create reasonable, articulable suspicion to convert the consensual encounter into an investigative detention; suppression warranted and conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes distinction between consensual encounters, investigative stops, and arrests and the reasonable-suspicion standard for stops)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (describes reasonable, articulable suspicion requirement for investigative stops)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (appellate review of suppression motions is a mixed question; trial court findings of fact entitled to deference)
- State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56 (1998) (lists non-exclusive factors Ohio courts consider in assessing reasonable suspicion for DUI investigations)
- State v. Mesley, 134 Ohio App.3d 833 (1999) (investigatory stop requires reasonable, articulable suspicion)