506 N.E.2d 266 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1985
Lead Opinion
On November 7, 1984, defendant-appellant Mark Darga was observed by a constable of Sharon Township in an unincorporated portion of the township while appellant was driving his motor vehicle in an erratic manner, crossing lanes of traffic and driving off the road. The constable followed appellant, from an unincorporated portion of Sharon Township into the city of Worthington, which is also a part of Sharon Township. Appellant was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, R.C.
Appellant has raised the following assignments of error:
"1. The court erred in holding that a township constable has the power to make traffic arrests for offenses not listed in O.R.C.
"2. The court erred in finding the defendant guilty of both
"3. The verdict on the (DWI)
Appellant's first assignment of error is premised on his contention that a township constable only has authority to arrest for those traffic offenses expressly listed in R.C.
"(C) A constable, within the limits of the township in which the constable is appointed or elected, shall arrest and detain until a warrant can be obtained a person found by himcommitting, within the limits of the township, a misdemeanor, either in violation of a law of this state or an ordinance of a village." (Emphasis added.)
In accordance with the foregoing statute, since the offenses for which appellant was arrested, i.e., operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and improper lane usage, are misdemeanors, see R.C.
Appellant further contends, however, that since R.C.
"(D) If a * * * constable * * * is authorized by division * * * (C) of this section to arrest and detain * * * a person until a warrant can be obtained, the peace officer may, outside the limits of the political subdivision * * * in which he is appointed or elected, pursue, arrest, and detain that person until a warrant can be obtained if all of the following apply:
"(1) The pursuit takes place without unreasonable delay after the offense is committed;
"(2) The pursuit is initiated within the limits of the political subdivision * * * in which the peace officer is appointed or elected;
"(3) The offense involved is * * * any offense for which points are chargeable pursuant to division (G) of section
The offenses contained in R.C.
Appellant's second assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of violating R.C.
"Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant may be convicted of only one." R.C.
However, R.C.
"The allied offense statute merely provides that where allied offenses are present, the person can only be convicted of one of the offenses. Conviction in this context means a judgment ofconviction." (Emphasis added.)
Further, State v. Henderson (1979),
In his final assignment of error, appellant contends that since the evidence presented by him, to explain his erratic driving and, therefore, establish lack of probable cause to stop, was equal to the evidence presented by the state, appellant's conviction of R.C.
For the foregoing reasons, appellant's three assignments of error are overruled, and the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
REILLY, P.J., and WHITESIDE, J., concur.
FORD, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting by assignment in the Tenth Appellate District.
Concurrence Opinion
With the understanding that we do not hold that a township constable has authority to arrest without a warrant for traffic offenses observed by the officer to have been committed outside his bailiwick (the unincorporated area of the township), I concur in the opinion and judgment. See Cincinnati v. Alexander (1978),