State v. AdamsState v. Adams
{¶1}. Appellant State of Ohio appeals the decision of the Court of Commоn Pleas, Licking County, which granted a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop by a state trooper. Defendant-Appellee is Joseph M. Adams. Thе relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2}. On the morning of July 22, 2013, Trooper Rustun Schack of the Ohio State Highway Patrol was traveling westbound in his cruiser on Interstate 70 in Licking County, Ohio. Shortly after 9:00 AM, he observed a westbound Buick Century station wagon being driven in the left lane at about 65 to 70 miles per hour. Suppression Hrg. Tr. at 8, 18. Trooper Schack saw the vehicle signal to change lanes and then move from the left lane into the right lane in front of a semi-truck, also proceeding westbound. Trooper Schack estimated that when the Buick‘s driver completed the lane change, it left a distance of approximately two car lengths between the Buick and the front of the truck. Tr. at 8-9. Additionally, it was cloudy and raining lightly, but the Buick did not appear to have its headlights on. Tr. at 9, 16.
{¶3}. The officer believed that the driver of the vehicle committed a traffic violation based on the action of returning to the right lane in front of the semi-truck withоut allowing sufficient space, given the speed at which the vehicle was traveling and the rainy conditions. See Tr. at 15. Trooper Schack thus initiated a traffic stop. Id. Appellee Adams was thereupon identified as the driver of the Buick.
{¶4}. As a result of the traffic stop, appellee was found to be in possession of several contraband items, and he made inсriminating statements regarding same. Tr. at
{¶5}. On December 8, 2014, appellee filed a motion to suppress. The matter proceeded to a suppression hearing on January 9, 2015. Tr. at 4. At the hearing, the parties agreed to limit the issue to the lawfulness of thе traffic stop. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement, although the judge orally noted: “I find it hard to believe that anyone who passes a vehiсle on [Interstate] 70 is seven car lengths ahead. It defies common sense.” Tr. at 29.
{¶6}. On January 20, 2015, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting the motion to suppress.
{¶7}. On January 23, 2015, Appellant State of Ohio filed a notice of appeal and a
{¶8}. “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED HARMFUL ERROR IN NOT FINDING THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE AND ARTICULABLE SUSPICION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD COMMITTED A TRAFFIC VIOLATION.”
I.
{¶9}. In its sole Assignment of Error, the State of Ohio contends the trial court erroneоusly granted Appellee Adams‘s motion to suppress. We disagree.
{¶10}. The
{¶11}. There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court‘s ruling on a motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court‘s finding of faсt. Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. Finally, an appellant mаy argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in the motion to suppress. When reviewing this third type of claim, an appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court‘s conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in the given case. See State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 1 OBR 57, 437 N.E.2d 583; State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 619 N.E.2d 1141; State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96, 641 N.E.2d 1172; State v. Claytor (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 623, 627, 620 N.E.2d 906; State v. Guysinger (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 592, 621 N.E.2d 726. The United States Supreme Court has held that “... as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal.” Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911.
{¶12}. During the suppression hearing in the case sub judice, the cоurt asked Trooper Schack what traffic offense he would have been relied had he issued a traffic citation to appellee. See Tr. at 26. The trooper referеnced
{¶13}. However, the prosecutor, perhaps recognizing that
{¶14}.
{¶15}.
{¶16}. The gist of the trooper‘s observations in the case sub judice is set forth in his following testimony:
{¶17}. “About that time and date I was in the left lane following a Buick station wagon. I was following the vehicle I don’t know for how long. The vehicle then - - I observеd the vehicle move from the left lane into the right lane changing lanes. The vehicle did activate his turn signal before doing so. When the Defendant made his lane
{¶18}. “The Defendant then changed lanes in front of a semi truck. When the Defendant made this lane change, it was unsafe at the time as he did not leave enough room between his vehicle and the semi truck which he changed lanes in front of. There was approximately two car lengths between the front of the sеmi and the rear bumper of the Defendant’s vehicle when he made that lane change at approximately 65 to 70 miles per hour.”
{¶19}. Tr. at 8-9.
{¶20}. Trooper Schack thus emphasized that as аppellee finalized his lane change back in front of the semi, he left only about two car lengths between the two vehicles. Tr. at 9. Schack explained that pursuant to his Highway Patrоl training, a driver should allow one car length of space for every ten miles per hour of vehicle speed. Tr. at 11. Since he had paced appellant‘s Buick at 65 to 70 MPH, the trоoper iterated that the proper spacing for appellee should have been six and one-half to seven car lengths in front of the truck, making appellee‘s aсt of passing “greatly not safe.” Id. On cross-examination, the trooper nonetheless conceded that appellee had caused no accident or impediment to traffic by his actions, and that right after the pass was completed, appellee continued to gain ground ahead of the semi. See Tr. at 24.2
{¶21}. This Court addressed the “car length” rule of thumb in State v. Pierce, 5th Dist. Richland No. 10 CA 52, 2011-Ohio-2361, in which we recognized that “[a]n
{¶22}. However, Pierce, like the cases cited in the State‘s brief (see, e.g., State v. Johnson, 9th Dist. No. 03CA0127-M, 2004-Ohio-3409) pertain to law enforcement officers stopping vehicles perceived to be following other vehicles too closely, which patently is not what transpired in the instant case. The State instead herein proposes that appellee was lawfully stopped by the trooper either because he had not safely overtaken the semi (
{¶23}. The Ohio Supreme Court has clearly stated that ” *** if an officer‘s decision to stop a motorist for a criminal violаtion, including a traffic violation, is prompted by a reasonable and articulable suspicion considering all the circumstances, then the stop is constitutionally valid.” State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204, 2008–Ohio–4539, ¶ 8. Upon review, wе do not accept the State‘s attempted rationalization of the trooper‘s traffic stop in these specific circumstances as one based on a reasоnable suspicion of appellee violating Ohio traffic law.
{¶24}. Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in granting appellee‘s motion to suppress. The State‘s sole Assignment of Errоr is overruled.
{¶25}. For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Licking County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.
JWW/d 0904