Zanesville v. Reaver
2017 Ohio 4149
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Around 3:00 a.m. on Dec. 24, 2015, OSP Sgt. Jirles paced Reaver for speeding and observed traffic violations (failed stop at red light, improper turn); he initiated a stop.
- Officer smelled a strong odor of alcohol from Reaver’s vehicle; Reaver fumbled for documents and had a passenger; officer placed Reaver in the front seat of the patrol cruiser.
- In the cruiser, Reaver admitted drinking (initially three beers, later four drinks) and the odor intensified when officer and Reaver were alone.
- Officer administered SFSTs (HGN, Walk-and-Turn, One-Leg Stand); court found HGN not in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards but WAT and OLS were substantially compliant.
- Reaver was arrested and charged with OVI under-the-influence and per-se (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d)); he pled no contest to the per-se count (breath test .116) after the court denied suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop | Stop supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion from observed traffic violations | Stop invalid or improperly justified | Stop valid; officer observed traffic violations and trial court’s credibility findings were supported by competent evidence |
| Admissibility of SFST results (WAT, OLS, HGN) | WAT and OLS were in substantial compliance and admissible; HGN excluded for noncompliance | All SFST results should be suppressed for noncompliance with NHTSA | HGN excluded; WAT and OLS admissible as substantially compliant; officer’s lay observations admissible even if technical test results excluded |
| Probable cause to arrest after SFSTs | Totality (odor, admissions, red/glassy eyes, erratic driving, FST observations) established probable cause | Lack of properly administered SFSTs undercuts probable cause | Probable cause existed based on totality (odor, admissions, appearance, traffic violations); FST deviations were de minimis and not required for probable cause |
| Admissibility of pre-arrest statements (admissions of drinking) | Statements admissible because not custodial interrogation during ordinary traffic stop | Statements involuntary/custodial and should be suppressed without Miranda warnings | Statements admissible; placement in cruiser did not amount to Miranda custody under Berkemer/Farris given facts (no pat-down, no handcuffs, no keys removed, no threatened/search) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. State, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (appellate review of suppression: mixed question of law and fact)
- Homan v. State, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (totality of circumstances can establish probable cause without SFSTs)
- Schmitt v. State, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 (officer observations during SFSTs admissible as lay testimony even if tests not in substantial compliance)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (ordinary traffic stops do not constitute Miranda custody)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (de novo review of legal application to suppression-finding facts)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (officer’s subjective intent not relevant to traffic-stop legitimacy)
- Lucas v. State, 40 Ohio St.3d 100 (per-se offenses depend on chemical test accuracy, not behavior)
- Farris v. State, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (factors that can render a stop custodial for Miranda purposes)