2018 Ohio 2873
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Around 3:00 a.m. Trooper Fowler observed Jay Yost’s westbound vehicle cross the right fog line on U.S. 224 and initiated a traffic stop for a marked‑lanes violation.
- At contact, the trooper smelled a strong odor of marijuana and a moderate odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle and observed Yost with slow movements and bloodshot, glossy eyes.
- Fowler moved Yost to his cruiser, detected marijuana odor on Yost, and found a cigarillo in the vehicle; he administered HGN and VGN testing, reporting 6/6 HGN clues and vertical nystagmus.
- Yost refused a breath test; officer obtained a blood warrant. The State later filed a motion to dismiss on alcohol grounds, which the court denied because impairment can be non‑alcoholic.
- Yost moved to suppress, arguing (1) the stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion under R.C. 4511.33 and (2) the HGN was not administered in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards. The trial court denied suppression; Yost pleaded no contest and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop for marked‑lanes violation | Trooper observed Yost cross fog line and rumble strips, supporting stop | Yost relied on Shaffer: a brief one‑time tire touch is insufficient without evidence on practicability/safety | Stop upheld—video showed conditions and permitted inference that remaining in lane was practicable; reasonable suspicion existed |
| Admissibility of HGN (substantial compliance) | State: officer trained, testified he followed NHTSA, observed HGN/VGN signs | Yost: video/audio shows HGN took ~60s (argues NHTSA contemplates ~84s), alleged noncompliance | HGN admissible; record inconclusive on timing but officer’s observations and training sufficed; even absent strict compliance, other observations supported probable cause |
| Probable cause to arrest for OVI | State: totality of observations (odors, red/glassy eyes, HGN/VGN, tongue coating, lane violation) established probable cause | Yost: challenged reliance on HGN and lane stop | Probable cause upheld—multiple indicators of impairment supported arrest independent of exact FST timing |
| Whether field sobriety performance is necessary for arrest | State: FSTs informative but not required | Yost: emphasized deficiencies in testing | Held against Yost: probable cause can rest on totality of circumstances even without perfect FST compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (explains standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- Bobo v. Ohio, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (defines reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Mays v. Ohio, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (traffic stop valid where officer witnesses lane drift)
- Batchili v. Ohio, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (reasonable‑suspicion analysis considers aggregate factors)
- Boczar v. Ohio, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (HGN admissible without expert testimony if foundation shows training and proper technique)
- Schmitt v. Ohio, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (officer may testify about FST observations without strict compliance proof)
- Homan v. Ohio, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (probable cause to arrest may be based on totality of circumstances, not solely FST performance)
- Fanning v. Ohio, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (trial court as factfinder: appellate courts accept factual findings supported by credible evidence)