621 N.E.2d 726 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1993
Plaintiff, the state of Ohio, appeals from a decision of the Chillicothe Municipal Court granting defendant-appellee's motion to suppress evidence based on lack of reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant.
Appellant asserts the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in finding no probable cause to stop when arresting officer observed Defendant's vehicle with only one operative taillight or brake light, the other taillight and/or brake light being damaged and failing to comply with the standards set forth in the Ohio Administrative Code."
Having fully considered this assignment of error, we affirm the decision of the trial court. *594
On January 24, 1992, Trooper Barnes and Trooper Rosta stopped appellee's vehicle to issue a "defective warning" because one of the brake lights on appellee's vehicle "was showing white instead of red." Trooper Barnes testified that he did not see the appellee commit any moving violations, nor did he notice any other safety violations. After he stopped appellee, Trooper Barnes noticed an odor of alcohol, conducted field sobriety tests and subsequently arrested appellee. Appellee was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R.C.
The trial court granted defendant-appellee's motion to suppress in a judgment entry dated March 17, 1992. The trial court found that the officers did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to stop appellee. The state timely appealed.
In its sole assignment of error, appellant challenges the trial court's finding of lack of reasonable suspicion to stop the appellee.1
In a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact, and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate witness credibility. See,e.g., State v. Mills (1992),
The investigative stop exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a police officer to stop an individual to investigate if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent. Terry v. Ohio
(1968),
In the case at bar, Trooper Barnes stopped the appellee because one of his brake lights showed white light instead of red. The trooper did not charge appellee with a violation of any statute because of this defective brake light.
R.C.
R.C.
The statutes clearly provide that motor vehicles need only have one operating taillight to conform to the statutes.State v. Frye (1985),
Appellant's argument in this appeal centers around a section of the Ohio Administrative Code which appears to require motor vehicles to be equipped with two or more stop lamps. Ohio Adm. Code
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court correctly determined that the arresting officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop appellee. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
STEPHENSON and PETER B. ABELE, JJ., concur.