Plaintiff-appellant, city of Medina, appeals the decision of the Medina Municipal Court granting defendant-appellee’s motion to suppress evidence obtained by Medina Township and city of Medina police officers. We reverse and remand.
On April 23, 1994, two Medina Township officers observed defendant-appellee, Samuel S. Filler, operating a motor vehicle within the city of Medina in an erratic manner, committing numerous traffic violations. Specifically, Filler’s vehicle failed to yield to the township cruiser’s right of way, and the township officers observed Filler weaving, driving left of center, and making a wide right turn.
The township officers stopped Filler and immediately contacted the city of Medina Police Department for back-up. Upon arrival, Officer Thomas Carrel, *733 the Medina police officer dispatched to the scene, observed Filler behind the wheel of his vehicle. Officer Carrel also observed the two township officers outside their cruiser along with a rescue squad vehicle that was called to the scene.
Before approaching Filler, Officer Carrel was briefed by the township officers as to their reasons for the traffic stop. Upon speaking with Filler, Officer Carrel testified he noticed an odor of alcohol. Officer Carrel testified Filler then told him that he had consumed approximately three beers. After performing a number of standard field sobriety tests, and based on what the township officers told him, Officer Carrel determined Filler was under the influence of alcohol. Filler was consequently arrested by Officer Carrel for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Prior to trial, Filler moved the trial court to suppress evidence obtained after he was stopped. He argued that probable cause did not exist for the initial stop. Filler also moved the trial court to dismiss the charges against him because the township officers were without jurisdiction to effectuate the traffic stop. The trial court treated the motion as a motion to suppress. The trial court found that the traffic stop by the township officers was unlawful because they violated R.C. 2935.03, and because none of the exceptions in R.C. 2935.03(D) were applicable. 1 Thus, the trial court granted Filler’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the township officers as a result of his initial detention, as well as all evidence obtained by the city of Medina police officer. The city of Medina appeals.
In its single assignment of error, the city of Medina argues that the evidence obtained by both city and township officers was improperly suppressed because the extraterritorial traffic stop did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The officers’ conduct did not, therefore, invoke the exclusionary rule. We agree.
In order to invoke the exclusionary rule, the police conduct ordinarily must rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Kettering v. Hollen
(1980),
“Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that an offense was committed.”
Barberton v. Smith
(Feb. 10, 1988), Summit App. No. 13272, unreported, at 3,
In his brief urging this court to affirm the trial court’s suppression of evidence, Filler attempts to distinguish his case from our previous cases. However, this court is not persuaded by Filler’s arguments and sees no reason why we should deviate from our rather clear interpretation of the law regarding the above issues.
Filler argues that
Hollen
should not apply because it involved the application of the “hot pursuit” doctrine, which is not present in this case. Yet, an examination of
Hollen
reveals the case is applicable. In reversing the appellate court’s suppression of evidence, the Ohio Supreme Court first found that “the defendant’s warrantless arrest * * * was not authorized.”
Hollen,
*735
Other jurisdictions support the above analysis. In
State v. Tennison
(Apr. 14, 1989), Wood App. No. WD-88-41, unreported,
“This court extends Hollen in holding that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable where a police officer, outside his or her jurisdiction, observes the commission of numerous misdemeanors by the driver of a motor vehicle who is obviously endangering the lives of others and, subsequently, makes an unauthorized extraterritorial arrest.” Id. See, also, State v. Cunningham (Feb. 14, 1992), Marion App. No. 9-91-32, unreported,1992 WL 29257 .
We therefore hold that the suppression of evidence by the trial court was improper. Appellant’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Notes
. The city of Medina stipulates in its brief that none of the R.C. 2935.03(D) exceptions apply to the Township officers’ conduct.