2019 Ohio 3235
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- At 1:27 a.m., Officer Cook stopped Christopher Osborne for speeding (88 mph in a 60 mph zone); Osborne pulled over on the left side of the road.
- Officer Cook smelled alcohol, observed slightly slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, and Osborne admitted drinking at least three Long Island Iced Teas at a bar.
- Officer Cook administered standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, one-leg stand, walk-and-turn) and observed multiple impairment indicators; Osborne was arrested for OVI.
- At the station, two breath samples were taken on an Intoxilyzer 8000 after a 20-minute observation; the machine’s external printer initially failed, and records later showed a BAC of .201 (initially recorded as .190 then corrected).
- Osborne moved to suppress (challenging reasonable suspicion for sobriety testing, substantial compliance with NHTSA for FSTs, probable cause to arrest, and substantial compliance with Ohio law for the breath test). The trial court denied suppression; Osborne pleaded no contest and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to require field sobriety tests | Officer: specific, articulable facts (time, location, odor, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, speeding, admission) justified testing | Osborne: detention expanded without reasonable suspicion | Held: reasonable suspicion existed based on seven Evans factors and officer experience; assignment overruled |
| 2. Whether FSTs were administered in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards | City: officer complied or any noncompliance is harmless because court relied only on observations | Osborne: numerous deviations from NHTSA manual rendered results inadmissible | Held: even if compliance error, harmless because court relied on officer observations and other facts for probable cause |
| 3. Whether officer had probable cause to arrest for OVI | City: totality of circumstances (speeding, odor, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, admission) provided probable cause | Osborne: challenged sufficiency of evidence for arrest | Held: probable cause existed independent of FST results; assignment overruled |
| 4. Whether breath test was shown to be in substantial compliance with Ohio law | City: compliance established at hearing for the specific issues raised (printer recovered internal printout; dry gas control not required) | Osborne: filed broad (“shotgun”) suppression motion alleging many code violations and contested breath test foundation | Held: Osborne’s motion failed to give adequate notice of specific alleged violations; on the issues actually raised, city proved substantial compliance; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (mixed standard of review for suppression motions; burden-shifting for chemical test admissibility)
- State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2004) (officer may testify to FST results only if substantial compliance shown)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 2000) (probable cause to arrest for OVI assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Mays v. State, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to traffic stops)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (probable cause standard for arrests)