528 N.E.2d 970 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1987
Appellant, John Pavao, was arrested by Officer Burroughs for various traffic offenses, including operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Section
At trial, appellant filed a motion to dismiss or to suppress evidence on the grounds that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The trial court overruled appellant's motion. Appellant then pleaded no contest and was found guilty of violating Section
Appellant now appeals the trial court's overruling of his motion to dismiss or to suppress evidence. We affirm.
The sole issue before us is whether Officer Burroughs had probable cause to arrest appellant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. We hold that Burroughs did have probable cause to arrest appellant and, therefore, that the trial court was correct in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss or to suppress evidence.
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 has been committed.Beck v. Ohio (1964),
Appellant relied upon State v. Taylor (1981),
Each of the steps taken by Burroughs was reasonable under the circumstances. Appellant's speeding justified the stop; the strong odor of *179 alcoholic beverage about appellant justified having appellant exit the vehicle; and the staggering gave Burroughs, a police officer with more than thirteen years' experience, probable cause to believe that appellant was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Because Burroughs had probable cause to arrest appellant, the trial court was correct in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss or suppress evidence.
The assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MAHONEY and GEORGE, JJ., concur.
*1