STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RYAN STADELMANN, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-130138
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
November 15, 2013
[Cite as State v. Stadelman, 2013-Ohio-5035.]
TRIAL NO. 12TRC-49692
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 15, 2013
OPINION.
John P. Curp, City Solicitor, Charles Rubenstein, City Prosecutor, and Christopher Liu, Assistant City Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
David Hoffmann, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
{¶1} In one assignment of error, defendant-appellant Ryan Stadelmann claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress prior to his pleading no contest to operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of
{¶2} Stadelmann was traveling on Drake Road when he made a “wide” left turn onto Madison Road. When turning, he turned from the lane immediately left of center on Drake into the far right lane on Madison. Thomas Bloomberg, a sergeant with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, observed the turn and believed it to be a violation of
[a]t any intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each roadway entering the intersection, an approach for a left turn shall be made in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof and by passing to the right of such center line where it enters the intersection and after entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection to the right of the center line of the roadway being entered.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶3} The portion of the statute relevant to our analysis seems to allow for two interpretations. First, and more likely, it means that a driver must turn into the lane closest to the center line when making a left turn onto a two-way street. In that case, Stadelmann‘s turn into the curb lane was a violation. Alternatively, the statute could simply mean that one must complete the turn without driving left-of-center—i.e. into
{¶4} But resolution of this case does not require that we answer this question. The question we must answer is whether Sergeant Bloomberg‘s belief that Stadelmann violated
[w]here a statue is vague or ambiguous, or requires judicial construction to determine its scope of meaning, exceptional circumstances exist which permit courts to extend the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to not only mistakes of fact but also mistakes of law.
State v. Reedy, 5th Dist. Perry No. 12-CA-1, 2012-Ohio-4899, ¶ 19, citing State v. Greer, 114 Ohio App.3d 299, 303, 683 N.E.2d 82 (2d Dist.1996). This court has reached a similar conclusion, noting that “reasonable suspicions can exist even if the officer misunderstands the law that the driver is allegedly violating.” State v. Burnett, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110565, C-110566, and C-110567, 2012-Ohio-1631, ¶ 9, citing State v. Leonard, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060595, 2007-Ohio-3312; State v. Cronin, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-100266, 2011-Ohio-1479. Thus, the test is whether an objectively reasonable officer could have concluded from Stadelmann‘s wide turn that he might have been violating a traffic law. Burnett at ¶ 9, citing Bowling Green v. Godwin, 110 Ohio St.3d 58, 2006-Ohio-3563, 850 N.E.2d 698, ¶ 15. And that is what we have in this case.
{¶5} The dissent argues that the statute is not only unambiguous, but that its plain meaning leaves no doubt that Stadelmann did not violate it. In so arguing, it cites a 1960 automobile accident case from the Eighth Appellate District, Richlin v. Gooding Amusement Co., 113 Ohio App. 99, 170 N.E.2d 505 (8th Dist.1960), for the proposition that the purpose of the language at issue was to make it “perfectly clear” that the
{¶6} The problem with relying on Richlin is that the facts and the court‘s analysis do not contemplate the issues in this case. In Richlin, the two vehicles were approaching each other from opposite directions on the same street when one vehicle turned in front of the other. Id. at 100-101. The specific question of how a turn is properly completed onto an intersecting roadway was not at issue.
{¶7} The appellant in Richlin had raised the issue of whether the jury had been properly instructed on the duties of a driver under
enter the intersection to the right of and next to the centerline of the street upon which it is traveling when proceeding into the intersection and proceed to the right of the centerline of the street being entered in making the left-hand turn[.]
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 102. Far from demonstrating that Stadelmann‘s turn was inarguably proper under the statute, the decision in Richlin could actually support Sergeant Bloomberg‘s interpretation of
{¶8} In a footnote, the dissent also makes reference to
{¶9} It is worth noting that even the Ohio Department of Public Safety agrees with this reading. In its manual Digest of Ohio Motor Vehicle Laws—the recommended study guide for anyone seeking to take the driver‘s license examination—a driver is instructed that “[t]he turn should be made into the lane on the right half of the street nearest the center line.” Digest of Ohio Motor Vehicle Laws, http://bmv.ohio.gov/pdf_forms/HSY-7607.pdf, 36 (accessed November 5, 2013). The diagrams used to illustrate proper left-hand turns all make clear that a turn must be completed into the lane just right of center, and that the driver may change lanes to the right thereafter. Id. at 37.
{¶10} As the Ohio Supreme Court has noted, members of law enforcement are not taking the bar examination every time they stop a motorist. Godwin, 110 Ohio St.3d 58, 2006-Ohio-3563, 850 N.E.2d 698, at ¶ 15. Under the facts of this case, Sergeant Bloomberg believed that the manner in which Stadelmann executed his turn violated
{¶11} Having considered his argument and the record, we overrule Stadelmann‘s sole assignment of error, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
FISCHER, J., concurs.
DEWINE, J., dissents.
DEWINE, J., dissenting.
{¶12} The only reason the officer provided for stopping the defendant in this case was the defendant‘s execution of a perfectly-legal left-hand turn. As a result, I believe that we are compelled to reverse the trial court‘s decision to deny the motion to suppress.
{¶13} The majority avoids this result by suggesting that the statute is ambiguous, and then concluding that even if the officer got the law wrong, because the law was ambiguous he still had probable cause to make the stop.
{¶14} But it is hard to understand what is ambiguous about the statute. Let‘s look at it again:
At any intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each roadway entering the intersection, an approach for a left turn shall be made in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof and by passing to the right of such center line where it enters the intersection and after entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection to the right of the center line of the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶15} The majority‘s finding that the statutory provision (which has been on Ohio‘s law books in its current form since 1951) is ambiguous will come as a surprise to many. Over a half century ago, one Ohio court noted that the purpose of the 1951 enactment was to “make it perfectly clear that ‘cutting the corner’ of the intersection was what was intended to be prohibited. Richlin v. Gooding Amusement Co., 113 Ohio App. 99, 103, 170 N.E.2d 505 (8th Dist.1960).2 At least sixteen other states include identical or practically identical language in their traffic codes. See, e.g,
{¶16} Because I am confident that the turn was perfectly legal under any plain reading of the statute, I disagree with the majority‘s conclusion that the officer‘s stop of Mr. Stadelmann for violating the law was “objectively reasonable.” Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.