STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- GABRIELLE LORENZO, Defendant-Appellant
Case No. 2015 CA 0011
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
September 14, 2015
[Cite as State v. Lorenzo, 2015-Ohio-3737.]
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.; Hon. John W. Wise, J.; Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Canton Municipal Court, Case No. 2014TRC7559 JUDGMENT: Affirmed
For Plaintiff-Appellee
ANTHONY FLEX ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 218 Cleveland Avenue S.W. Cantоn, Ohio 44702
For Defendant-Appellant
JACOB T. WILL 116 Cleveland Avneue N.W. Suite 808 Canton, Ohio 44702
{¶1} Appellant Gabrielle Lorenzo appeals the decision of the Canton Municipal Court, Stark County, which denied her motion to suppress evidence in an OVI case.
{¶2} Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
{¶3} The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
{¶4} On or about October 26, 2014, Appellant Gabrielle Lorenzo was charged with two counts of Operating a Vehicle Impaired, in violation of
{¶5} On November 21, 2014, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress.
{¶6} On December 16, 2014, a suрpression hearing was conducted. At issue were whether the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle and then subsequently ask her to exit her vehicle and whether probable cause existed to arrest Appellant.
{¶7} At the suppression hearing, the State called Ohio State Patrolman Niсholas Goodnite as their only witness. Trooper Goodnite testified that he was on patrol on October 26, 2014, at approximately 12:03 a.m. near Cleveland Avenue and Interstate 77 when he noticed a grey Volvo driving toward him. (T. at 6-7). Trooper Goodnite testified that this area is heavily patrolled due to the number of OVI related crashеs, OVI drivers, fatalities, and nearby bars. (T. at 9).
{¶8} He stated that his attention was drawn to the grey Volvo because as the vehicle approached his cruiser it appeared to be “one huge ball of light” as compared to two distinct separate headlights like the vehicle ahead of the Volvo. (T. at 7). This
{¶9} Upon witnessing the high beams being active, Trooper Goodnite conducted a traffic stоp of the grey Volvo. (T. at 8). Upon approaching the vehicle, Goodnite noticed a female driver, who was later identified as Appellant and a malе passenger. (T. at 8). When he approached the vehicle, Goodnite detected the odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. Upon speаking with Appellant, she admitted to having had some alcohol to drink. (T. at 8). Goodnite testified that Appellant‘s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. (T. at 9). At that time, Goodnite askеd Appellant to exit the vehicle and requested that she perform field sobriety tests. (T. at 9-11). Once Appellant was outside of the vehicle, Trooper Goodnitе could still detect a moderate odor of alcohol coming from her. (T. 9, 16, 21-22).
{¶10} Goodnite classified the odor of alcohol he detected as moderate, although he agreed on cross-examination that he did not include that detail in his report. (T. at 16, 22).
{¶11} Trooper Goodnite conducted three standardized field sobriety tеsts and a portable breath test on Appellant during the traffic stop, which he stated were all conducted according to his training. (T. 9-13). Six out of a possible six clues wеre observed during the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which indicated to Trooper Goodnite that there was a seventy percent (70%) chance Appellant would tеst at 0.10 BAC or higher. (T. at 10). Two clues were observed during the walk and turn test and no
{¶12} At the conclusion of the field sobriety test, Troоper Goodnite offered Appellant a portable breath test since she had indicated that she had taken thyroid medication that day. (T. at 12-14). He explainеd that this test was done to ensure the clues he observed were due to alcohol and not any medication she was taking. (T. at 12). Appellant took the portable breath test, which yielded a 0.096 BAC. (T. at 12-13).
{¶13} After Appellant was arrested she was transported to the highway patrol post and asked to provide a breath sample оn a Datamaster machine. (T. at 16-17). Appellant‘s sample was a 0.086 BAC. (T. 17-18).
{¶14} By Judgment Entry filed, December 18, 2014, the trial court denied Appellant‘s motion to suppress.
{¶15} On December 18, 2014, Aрpellant entered a plea to one count of OVI.
{¶16} The trial court sentenced Appellant to 3 days in jail or a Driver‘s Intervention Program, a six-month license susрension from October 26, 2014, and was ordered to complete 25 hours of community service.
{¶17} Appellant now appeals, raising the following sole Assignment of Error:
{¶18} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT‘S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.”
I.
{¶19} In her sоle Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court erroneously denied her motion to suppress. We disagree.
{¶20} The
{¶21} 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 fact. Second, an appellant may аrgue the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. Finally, an appellant may argue the trial cоurt 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 dеtermine, without deference to the trial court‘s conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in the given case. 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. However, as the United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L.Ed.2d 911, “... as a genеral matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal.”
{¶22} In the case sub judice, Aрpellant herein argues that Trooper Goodnite “lacked cause to have Appellant submit to field sobriety tests.” (Appellant‘s Brief at 7). Appellant also contends that there was not probable cause to arrest her.
{¶23} “Requiring a driver to submit to a field sobriety test constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the
{¶24} In reviewing this issue, we apply a “totality of the circumstances” approach. See, e.g., City of Fairfield v. Lucking, Butler App. No. CA2002-12-303, 2004-Ohio-90, ¶ 8, citing State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 414 N.E.2d 1044.
{¶25} In support of her position, Appellant cites State v, Keserich, 5th Dist. Ashland County, Case No. 2014-CA-011, 2014-Ohio-5120. In Keserich, this Court reversed the decision of the trial court overruling Keserich‘s motion to suppress. In Keserich, the defendant was stopped for not having a light illuminating his rear license plate. Upon stopping Keserich, the officer observed bloodshot and watеry eyes, and he admitted to having consumed two alcoholic beverages. Based on these facts, the officer requested that Keserich perform field sobriety tests. This Court, under the facts in this case, found that defendant‘s bloodshot eyes could have been attributed to the fact that there were four or five other passengers in the cаr who were smoking. This Court found that this possible explanation for the bloodshot eyes, together with the stop being based solely on an equipment violation and the lack of any observation of erratic driving, was not enough to form a basis to request performance of the field sobriety tests.
{¶26} We find this case to be distinguishable from Keserich, supra.
{¶27} In the instant case, as set forth in our recitаtion of facts, Trooper Goodnite stopped Appellant because she was driving with her high-beam lights on. He testified that such action could pose a danger to other drivers. Additionally, upon stopping
{¶28} Upon review, based on the above factors, we hold a reasonable basis existed for Trooper Goodnite to ask Appellant to step out of her vehiсle and proceed with field sobriety testing under the circumstances of this case and that probable cause existed for the arrest.
{¶29} We therefore hold the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress in this matter. Accordingly, Appellant‘s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶30} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Canton Municipal Court, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.
JWW/d 0910