State v. Kilbarger , 2012 Ohio 1521 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Kilbarger, 2012-Ohio-1521.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
HOCKING COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 11CA23
:
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
: DECISION AND
v. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ANTHONY L. KILBARGER, : RELEASED 03/19/12
:
Defendant-Appellee. :
______________________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Laina Fetherolf, Hocking County Prosecutor, and William L. Archer, Jr., Hocking County
Assistant Prosecutor, Logan, Ohio, for appellant.
James R. Kingsley, Kingsley Law Office, Circleville, Ohio, for appellee.
______________________________________________________________________
Harsha, J.
{¶1} The State of Ohio appeals the trial court’s decision to dismiss charges
against Anthony Kilbarger for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug
of abuse, or a combination of them (“OVI”). The trial court concluded that law
enforcement lacked probable cause to “detain or arrest” Kilbarger and granted his
“motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause to arrest[.]” We agree the trial court erred
but for different reasons than those advanced by the State. Although Kilbarger partially
framed his motion as one for dismissal, the proper remedy for a Fourth Amendment
violation is the suppression of evidence, not dismissal of the charges. Moreover, the
trial court incorrectly found that the patrolman needed probable cause to detain
Kilbarger. In reality to initiate the traffic stop the patrolman only needed a reasonable,
articulable suspicion that Kilbarger was engaged in or about to be engaged in criminal
activity. And because this erroneous finding evidently served as the foundation for the
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 2
court’s conclusion that the patrolman lacked probable cause to arrest Kilbarger, that
conclusion is likewise erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision and
remand so that the court can treat Kilbarger’s motion as one to suppress evidence and
utilize the appropriate legal standards for deciding such a motion.
I. Facts
{¶2} Patrolman Ryan Culbertson of the Logan Police Department arrested
Kilbarger for OVI and a grand jury subsequently indicted him on two counts of OVI. In
response Kilbarger filed a “multi-branch” motion asking the court to: 1.)
“dismiss/suppress/in limine the indictment and all evidence” because Culbertson
stopped him without reasonable articulable suspicion; 2.) suppress all evidence
because Culbertson “further detained” him without reasonable suspicion; 3.) exclude
“for purposes of probable cause and/or at trial his Field Sobriety Test results”; 4.)
suppress any statements made in violation of his Miranda rights; 5.) “suppress all
evidence for the reason he was arrested without probable cause that he was then and
there under the influence of alcohol”; 6.) “exclude for purposes of probable cause and/or
at trial his refusal to submit to Intoxilizer 8000 breath test”; 7.) exclude at trial his blood
test results.
{¶3} The trial court held a hearing on the motion, which it orally characterized
as a motion to suppress hearing. Culbertson testified that while on patrol, he observed
Kilbarger driving. He recognized Kilbarger because people had previously pointed him
out to Culbertson. People had also told Culbertson that Kilbarger had a suspended
license. Culbertson contacted dispatch, got confirmation that Kilbarger had a
suspended license, and initiated a traffic stop. According to Culbertson, he received
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 3
this confirmation in the time it took Kilbarger to drive half a block. Culbertson
acknowledged that typically for a driving under suspension offense, he issues a citation,
so he had no intent to arrest Kilbarger when he initiated the stop.
{¶4} Kilbarger parked his vehicle, jumped out, and started to walk towards the
cruiser before Culbertson stopped it. Kilbarger “appeared to be off balance” while he
walked. Culbertson told Kilbarger to return to his vehicle. Culbertson then approached
Kilbarger’s vehicle and asked for his driver’s license, registration, and proof of
insurance. Kilbarger could only produce his registration and proof of insurance.
Culbertson smelled “the odor of an alcoholic beverage” coming from the vehicle. He
noticed that Kilbarger’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot. He asked Kilbarger if he had
anything to drink that day, which Kilbarger denied. Culbertson noticed Kilbarger’s
speech was “slurred but not real bad.”
{¶5} Culbertson asked Kilbarger to exit the vehicle for field sobriety tests.
When Kilbarger complied, he was “unstable” and “used the door for support.”
Culbertson had Kilbarger perform three field sobriety tests: the horizontal gaze
nystagmus (HGN) test, the walk and turn, and the one leg stand. Culbertson observed
six clues during the HGN test and observed additional clues during the other tests. On
cross-examination, Culbertson acknowledged certain procedures he did not follow
during these tests.
{¶6} Culbertson testified he arrested Kilbarger for OVI and took him to the
police department where he refused to take a breath test. Culbertson prepared an
affidavit for an emergency search warrant application to get a blood draw and testified
at a hearing on the application. In the affidavit, Culbertson averred that Kilbarger’s
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 4
speech was “slurred or unintelligible.” But he admitted that at the hearing on the
application, he testified that Kilbarger’s speech was not slurred. In the affidavit,
Culbertson also averred that he determined Kilbarger was the “vehicle operator at the
time of operation” through “admissions of the offender” and “observations of the
investigating officer.” But Culbertson acknowledged that Kilbarger never admitted that
he was driving the vehicle. Culbertson obtained a search warrant, and the results
indicated Kilbarger had a blood alcohol content of 0.155.
{¶7} The trial court issued the following decision after the hearing:
This cause came on regularly for hearing on the defendant’s motion
to dismiss for lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. The Court
finds the motion well-taken and sustains the same.
Findings of Fact
1) The defendant was observed by Logan Police Department Patrolman
Ryan Culbertson * * * passing by in a Toyota 4-Runner.
2) The defendant was not driving erratically in any way.
3) Officer Culbertson claims to have fallen in behind the defendant and called
his dispatcher to “run” the defendant’s license plate. According to the
officer, the dispatcher then obtained the registration and the defendant’s
social security number and ran this through LEADS which revealed the
defendant’s license was under suspension. The officer claims this was
done in 4-5 seconds before he turned on his overhead lights to stop the
defendant. Based upon the evidence and testimony, the Court finds this
claim is not credible.
4) Next, the defendant pulled into an alley and exited his vehicle and walked
toward the cruiser. Patrolman Culbertson then ordered him back into his
vehicle, approached the defendant’s vehicle and began to question him.
Although the officer testified that the defendant had slurred speech and
checked the box on the boilerplate search warrant affidavit indicating so,
he testified earlier before municipal Judge Wallace that the defendant’s
speech was not slurred. Therefore this testimony is unreliable.
5) The officer administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, to which he
testified there were 4 clues. He also told the defendant to perform a one-
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 5
leg stand test, but the officer stopped the test after 8 seconds and failed to
advise the defendant to continue as the officer admitted is proper protocol.
6) In the affidavit for a search warrant (for the defendant’s blood draw) the
officer marked “admitted to consuming . . . alcohol in some amount prior to
the vehicle operation” but testified before this court that he didn’t admit
driving.
7) The officer also gave other improper instructions when observing the field
sobriety tests.
8) The Court is not unaware that the defendant has a horrible driving record
and faces revocation and a large jail sentence in Fairfield County as a
result of this arrest. The Court has also been made aware by the
prosecutor, in the presence of defense counsel, that the public perception
is that the defendant “gets out of lots of these.” However, he is still
entitled to the protection of the constitution, in spite of his behavior.
Conclusion of Law
Yet the court finds there was probable cause for the issuance of the
search warrant because Judge Wallace had a right to rely on information
presented to him in affidavit form and by direct testimony. Whether the
officer “ran” the defendant’s license, registration and LEADS before or
after he saw him driving is irrelevant in regard to the traffic stop.
However, the officer testified that he has virtually never arrested or
taken a person into custody who is merely under suspension. Therefore,
lacking credible evidence of probable cause, the officer had no right to
detain or arrest the defendant for DUI. The matter is dismissed.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶8} The State assigns one error for our review:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO
ARREST.
III. Propriety of Dismissal
{¶9} In its sole assignment of error, the State contends that the trial court erred
when it granted Kilbarger’s “motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause to arrest.”
Despite the trial court’s characterization of the motion, both parties apply the standard of
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 6
review for a motion to suppress in their briefs. The State claims that “[i]t appears from
the trial court’s Decision and Judgment Entry that the initial stop on Appellee was not
invalidated by the court.” (Appellant’s Br. 7). Therefore, the State does not address the
propriety of the initial traffic stop and proceeds to argue that there was both
“reasonable, articulable suspicion” for Culbertson to arrest Kilbarger for OVI (which as
we explain below is not the correct legal standard) and “probable cause” for the arrest.
(Appellant’s Br. 7, 10).
{¶10} We agree that the trial court erred when it dismissed the case but for
different reasons than those advanced by the State. Although Kilbarger characterized
his multi-branch motion in part as a motion to dismiss, “[a] motion to dismiss is generally
used when a defendant requests a court to dismiss an entire action based upon some
clearly defined transgression (e.g. defects in indictment or complaint, speedy trial
violations, discovery violations).” State v. Hehr, Washington App. No. 04CA10, 2005-
Ohio-353, at ¶3, fn. 2. Although Kilbarger cites Crim.R. 48 as supportive of dismissal in
this case, see Appellee’s Brief at 17, there is no provision in Ohio’s Rules of Criminal
Procedure for “a motion to dismiss a criminal case founded on the lack of probable
cause.” State v. Marcinko, Washington App. No. 06CA51, 2007-Ohio-1166, at ¶11,
quoting State v. Hartley (1988), 51 Ohio App.3d 47, 48, 554 N.E.2d 950; See Hehr at
¶3, fn. 2. Moreover, there is no provision in the Rules of Criminal Procedure for
summary judgment or a pretrial motion to challenge the legal sufficiency of the
evidence. Hehr at ¶3, fn. 2. See also State v. Brustowski (Mar. 24, 1999), Summit App.
No. 19221, 1999 WL 291906, at *1 (“A motion to dismiss that goes beyond the face of
charges against a defendant can only be presented as a motion for acquittal pursuant to
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 7
Crim.R. 29(A) after the prosecution has presented its case.”) And see generally, State
v. Nihiser, Hocking App. No. 03CA21, 2004-Ohio-4067, which discusses Crim.R. 48
and the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State v. Busch (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 613,
669 N.E.2d 1125.1
{¶11} The trial court granted Kilbarger’s motion based on alleged Fourth
Amendment violations. “The proper remedy for Fourth Amendment violations is
suppression of the evidence, not dismissal of the charges.” Hehr at ¶3, fn. 2. Thus a
lack of justification to detain a defendant or the “lack of probable cause to arrest can
only result in suppression of illegally obtained evidence, not in dismissal of charges.”
State v. Flanagan, Lawrence App. No. 03CA11, 2003-Ohio-6512, at ¶1. “The result of a
finding of lack of probable cause is that all evidence derived from the unconstitutional
arrest is unavailable to the State in its case-in-chief.” Id. at ¶7, citing State v. Daily (Jan.
15, 1998), Athens App. No. 97CA25, 1998 WL 18139, in turn, citing Mapp v. Ohio
(1961), 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081. The State may continue
prosecution without the suppressed evidence if it chooses. Flanagan at ¶7. Therefore,
the trial court should have treated Kilbarger’s motion simply as one to suppress
evidence. Even if the court granted the motion and ultimately suppressed all the
evidence against Kilbarger, it would have been the State’s decision whether to continue
its prosecution, not the trial court’s.
{¶12} Moreover, the trial court applied an improper analysis when it found that
Culbertson lacked probable cause to arrest Kilbarger. The Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,
1
In the context of a preliminary hearing under Crim.R. 5(B) lack of probable cause to believe the
Defendant committed a felony would be an appropriate basis for discharging the accused. However we
deal here with a crime charged by the grand jury.
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 8
provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.” Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution also prohibits unreasonable
searches and seizures. Because Section 14, Article I and the Fourth Amendment
contain virtually identical language, the Supreme Court of Ohio has interpreted the two
provisions as affording the same protection. State v. Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d 389, 391, 2001-
Ohio-50, 745 N.E.2d 1036.
{¶13} Searches and seizures conducted without a prior finding of probable
cause by a judge or magistrate are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,
subject to only a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz v.
United States (1967), 389 U .S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. Once the
defendant demonstrates that he was subjected to a warrantless search or seizure, the
burden shifts to the State to establish that the warrantless search or seizure was
constitutionally permissible. See Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295, 297, 1999-
Ohio-68, 720 N.E.2d 507. In this case, law enforcement did not obtain a warrant for any
purpose prior to arresting Kilbarger.
{¶14} “An officer’s temporary detention of an individual during a traffic stop
constitutes a seizure of a person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment * * *.”
State v. Lewis, Scioto App. No. 08CA3226, 2008-Ohio-6691, at ¶14. “To be
constitutionally valid, the detention must be reasonable under the circumstances.” Id.“A traffic stop is reasonable when an officer possesses probable cause to believe that
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 9
an individual has committed a traffic violation.” State v. Taylor, Washington App. No.
07CA11, 2008-Ohio-482, at ¶15, citing Whren v. United States (1996), 517 U.S. 806,
809, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89. “‘Probable cause’ is defined as a reasonable
ground of suspicion that is supported by facts and circumstances, which are sufficiently
strong to warrant a prudent person in believing that an accused person had committed
or was committing an offense.” State v. Jones, Washington App. No. 03CA61, 2004-
Ohio-7280, at ¶40, citing State v. Ratcliff (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 199, 205, 642 N.E.2d
31.
{¶15} Although probable cause “is certainly a complete justification for a traffic
stop,” it is not required. State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-4539, 894
N.E.2d 1204, at ¶23. So long as “an officer’s decision to stop a motorist for a criminal
violation, including a traffic violation, is prompted by a reasonable and articulable
suspicion considering all the circumstances, then the stop is constitutionally valid.” Id.
at ¶8. Reasonable and articulable suspicion is obviously a lower standard than
probable cause. See id. at ¶23. To conduct an investigatory stop, the officer must be
able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational
inferences derived from those facts, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the
individual is engaged or about to be engaged in criminal activity. See State v. Williams
(1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 58, 60-61, 554 N.E.2d 108 (per curiam). “The propriety of an
investigative stop by a police officer must be viewed in light of the totality of the
surrounding circumstances.” State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 414 N.E.2d
1044, at paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶16} Once a driver has been lawfully stopped, an officer may order the driver to
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 10
get out of the vehicle without any additional justification. State v. Huffman, Clark App.
No. 2010-CA-104, 2011-Ohio-4668, at ¶8. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977), 434
U.S. 106, 111, fn. 6, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331. However, “the officer must ‘carefully
tailor’ the scope of the stop ‘to its underlying justification,’ and the stop must ‘last no
longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.’” Marcinko, supra, at
¶26, quoting Florida v. Royer (1983), 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d
229. “An officer may lawfully expand the scope of the stop and may lawfully continue to
detain the individual if the officer discovers further facts which give rise to a reasonable
suspicion that additional criminal activity is afoot.” Id.{¶17} Thus, “[a]n officer conducting a routine traffic stop may * * * expand the
stop’s scope in order to investigate whether the individual stopped is under the influence
of alcohol and may continue to detain the individual to confirm or dispel his suspicions if
the officer observes additional facts during the routine stop which reasonably lead him
to suspect that the individual may be under the influence.” Id. at ¶28. This expanded
stop might include field sobriety tests. The results of field sobriety tests are admissible
at trial if the State presents clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered
the tests in substantial compliance with “the testing standards for any reliable, credible,
and generally accepted field sobriety tests that were in effect at the time the tests were
administered * * *.” R.C. 4511.19(D)(4)(b).
{¶18} The standard for determining whether an officer had probable cause to
arrest an individual for OVI is whether, at the moment of arrest, the officer had sufficient
information, derived from a reasonably trustworthy source of facts and circumstances,
sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was operating a motor
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 11
vehicle while under the influence. See State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427, 2000-
Ohio-212, 732 N.E.2d 952 (superseded by statute on other grounds), citing Beck v.
Ohio (1964), 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 and State v. Timson (1974),
38 Ohio St.2d 122, 127, 311 N.E.2d 16. When making this determination, the trial court
should consider the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. Id.{¶19} Contrary to the State’s position that the trial court upheld the initial traffic
stop, the trial court specifically found that Culbertson lacked probable cause to “detain
or arrest” Kilbarger. (Emphasis added). Thus the trial court found both the initial traffic
stop and the continued detention for field sobriety tests invalid for lack of probable
cause. However, as we explained above, the State did not have to demonstrate
probable cause existed for Culbertson to take those actions. The State only had to
show Culbertson had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Kilbarger was driving
under suspension – a lower standard than probable cause – to initiate the traffic stop. If
the traffic stop was proper, Culbertson did not need any additional justification to order
Kilbarger out of the vehicle so long as the detention did not last longer than necessary
to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Moreover, Culbertson could lawfully expand the
scope of the stop and conduct field sobriety tests if he discovered additional facts that
gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Kilbarger had been operating the
vehicle under the influence.
{¶20} Kilbarger contends that “[s]ince the trial judge did not believe the officer in
any respect, then his basis for the stop was not believed, the stop was unconstitutional
warranting suppression of the evidence.” (Appellants’ Br. 4). However, even if we
accept the contention that the trial court did not believe Culbertson actually ran the
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 12
LEADs check, the court still applied the wrong legal standard to determine if the initial
stop was reasonable.
{¶21} It appears the trial court concluded that Culbertson lacked probable cause
to arrest Kilbarger because he lacked “probable cause” to initially detain him; because
the initial detention was illegal, nothing Culbertson discovered after the initial stop could
be used to form the basis for probable cause to arrest Kilbarger. Clearly this analysis is
flawed because the court applied the wrong legal standard when it invalidated both the
traffic stop and the continued detention for field sobriety tests. Therefore, the court’s
ultimate conclusion that Culbertson lacked probable cause to arrest Kilbarger was
premised on an incorrect legal analysis of the original investigative stop and subsequent
continued detention to investigate a possible OVI.
{¶22} We recognize that the court made other “conclusions of law” in its
decision, but none of those conclusions justify a decision to dismiss the indictment. For
instance, the court noted that Culbertson testified that he has “virtually never arrested or
taken a person into custody who is merely under suspension.” However, a traffic stop
and subsequent arrest is not invalid simply because the officer did not intend to arrest
the driver when he initiated the stop. As we have pointed out, subsequent events may
justify a formal arrest. In addition, the court found “probable cause for the issuance of
the search warrant” for the blood draw “because Judge Wallace had a right to rely on
information presented to him in affidavit form and by direct testimony.” However, the
propriety of the search warrant is irrelevant for determining whether Culbertson legally
detained and arrested Kilbarger because Culbertson obtained the warrant after the
arrest.
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 13
{¶23} Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred when it dismissed the
charges against Kilbarger. We sustain the sole assignment of error, reverse the trial
court’s decision, and remand this matter for further proceedings, including a new
hearing on Kilbarger’s motion.
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND
CAUSE REMANDED.
Hocking App. No. 11CA23 14
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS REVERSED and that the CAUSE IS
REMANDED. Appellee shall pay the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Hocking
County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS
BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is
temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously
posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme
Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court.
If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the
sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the
Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of
the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court
of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as
of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. & McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY: ________________________
William H. Harsha, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment
entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing
with the clerk.