State v. Hall , 2016 Ohio 783 ( 2016 )

[Cite as State v. Hall, 2016-Ohio-783.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-150317
TRIAL NO. C-14TRC-48165A
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
DANA HALL, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed from is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 2, 2016
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Jonathan N. Fox, for Defendant-Appellee.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
C UNNINGHAM , Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant the state of Ohio appeals from the order of the
Hamilton County Municipal Court granting defendant-appellee Dana Hall’s motion
to suppress evidence for lack of probable cause at the time of her arrest. Hall was
arrested for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (“OVI”) in
violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). Although Hall was placed in a police cruiser for
safety reasons and denied the use of her phone during the OVI investigation, she was
lawfully detained, and she was not under arrest until after she became belligerent
and combative and refused to take field-sobriety tests. These facts, when considered
in the totality of the other circumstances, including the officer’s observation of a
strong odor of alcohol about her person, Hall’s admission to drinking alcohol earlier
in the evening, her trouble with balancing, and her involvement in a single-car
accident, provided probable cause for the arrest. Therefore, we reverse the trial
court’s judgment.
I. Background Facts and Procedure
{¶2} In the late evening on October 6, 2014, veteran patrol officer Jeff
Carnine of the Forest Park Police Department responded to the scene of a one-car
accident on westbound Interstate-275. He found Hall’s disabled vehicle in the high-
speed lane, where it had stopped after striking and riding along the median guardrail
for a distance. As a result of the impact, the front bumper and wheel had separated
from the car and the airbags had deployed.
{¶3} Hall told the officer that she had struck the guardrail after swerving to
miss an animal or article in the roadway. She indicated that she had not suffered any
injury, but she appeared agitated from the crash and had difficulty with her balance.
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Officer Carnine detected a “general” odor of alcohol about her person at this time,
but Hall spoke clearly and cooperated.
{¶4} For safety reasons, Officer Carnine had Hall sit in the back of his police
cruiser while he investigated the accident. He observed that Hall had trouble
walking in a straight line as she ambled to his cruiser. He found no evidence of an
animal strike after examining the damage to Hall’s vehicle.
{¶5} After diligently investigating the accident, he returned to his cruiser to
speak with Hall. At that point, he noticed a “very strong” odor of alcohol. Before this
observation, he had not considered an OVI investigation.
{¶6} Because of this strong odor of alcohol, he asked Hall if she had
consumed any alcohol that evening. Hall first denied drinking anything, but when
the officer told her that he could smell alcohol on her person, she explained that she
had stopped drinking several hours earlier.
{¶7} Officer Carnine then told Hall that she was under investigation for OVI
and asked her to exit from the cruiser to perform field-sobriety tests. Hall requested
to use her phone to call “someone.” The officer advised her that she could not
because he was conducting an investigation. Hall refused to exit from the cruiser
and became belligerent and combative. She called the officer a “son-of-a-bitch” and
attempted to kick out the back windows of the cruiser. At that point, Officer Carnine
placed her under arrest for OVI and took her into custody.
{¶8} Hall moved to suppress the evidence. At the hearing on the motion,
the issue was narrowed to whether Officer Carnine had probable cause to arrest her.
Officer Carnine was the sole witness at the hearing. His testimony unequivocally
provided that Hall had been placed in the cruiser for safety reasons while he
investigated the accident, and that he had not physically placed Hall under arrest for
3
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
OVI until she had become belligerent and combative and refused to perform field-
sobriety tests at the scene.
{¶9} After the hearing, Hall filed a memorandum in support of her motion.
She argued that at the time she was told that she could not use her phone when
confined in the police cruiser, she had been unreasonably seized in violation of her
constitutional rights because the officer lacked probable cause to arrest.
Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion to suppress.
{¶10} The court stated on the record its rationale for granting the motion.
The court adopted the historical facts as testified to by Officer Carnine, except for
one. Notwithstanding Officer Carnine’s unchallenged testimony otherwise, the court
recalled that Officer Carnine had physically placed Hall under arrest for OVI before
she had become belligerent and refused to perform the field-sobriety tests.
{¶11} The trial court paraphrased the officer’s testimony as follows: “I
remember * * * her asking to [use] the phone to call somebody. I said no. I did tell
her I was [doing] an OVI investigation * * * and then she became belligerent and
didn’t want to get out of the cruiser. I had already arrested her at that point.” The
court was perplexed as to why the officer wanted to perform a field-sobriety test after
her arrest. The court concluded that Officer Carnine had lacked probable cause at the
time of the arrest, and granted Hall’s motion, suppressing evidence of Hall’s
truculence and her refusal to perform the sobriety tests. The state now appeals,
assigning error to the trial court’s finding that there was no probable cause to arrest
Hall for OVI.
II. Standard of Review
{¶12} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of
law and fact.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d
4
 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
71, ¶ 8. The trial court when ruling on the motion to suppress “assumes the role of
trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve the factual questions and
evaluate the credibility of witnesses.” Id., citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St. 3d 357,
366, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992).
{¶13} We review the trial court’s findings of the historical facts only for clear
error. State v. Bryant, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-090546, 2010-Ohio-4474, ¶ 16,
citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911
(1996). And we “must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by
competent, credible evidence.” Burnside, citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St. 3d 19,
437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Then, in light of the established facts, we must
“independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court,
whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Id.
III. Analysis
{¶14} Hall’s motion to suppress challenged the lawfulness of her arrest for
OVI in light of the constitutional limit on unreasonable seizures. The Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio
Constitution protect against, among other things, unreasonable seizures of the
person. Evidence derived from a search or seizure that violates the Fourth
Amendment is subject to exclusion at trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S. Ct.
1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961).
{¶15} Hall’s warrantless arrest for OVI was required to be supported by
probable cause. State v. Hummel, 154 Ohio App. 3d 123, 2003-Ohio-4602, 796
N.E.2d 558, ¶ 27-29 (11th Dist.), explaining Oregon v. Szakovits, 32 Ohio St. 2d 271,
291 N.E.2d 742 (1972). Probable cause to arrest exists when an officer is aware of
facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
or is committing a crime. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S. Ct. 223, 13 L. Ed. 2d 142
(1964).
{¶16} But not every seizure of a citizen by a police officer is an arrest
requiring probable cause. There are three general categories of police-citizen
contacts for purposes of determining the protections afforded by the Fourth
Amendment. These categories include a (1) consensual encounter, (2) an
investigative detention, or “Terry stop,” and, finally, (3) a seizure that constitutes an
arrest. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983)
(plurality opinion), cited in State v. Mitchem, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130351, 2014-
Ohio-2366, ¶ 17; State v. Taylor, 106 Ohio App. 3d 741, 747-749, 667 N.E.2d 60 (2d
Dist.1995).
{¶17} An investigative detention or Terry stop is less intrusive than a formal
arrest, but more intrusive than a consensual encounter. Taylor at 748. Generally, an
investigatory detention is reasonable and, thus, passes constitutional muster, when
the officer performing the investigatory detention has a reasonable, articulable
suspicion of criminal activity. Taylor at 749, citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88
S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Limited in both duration and purpose, the
investigative detention may last only as long as it reasonably takes a police officer to
confirm or dispel suspicion of criminal activity. Terry; Royer at 500.
{¶18} Under Ohio law, an arrest occurs when there is (1) an intent to arrest,
(2) under real or pretended authority, (3) accompanied by actual or constructive
seizure or detention of the person, and (4) that is so understood by the person
arrested. State v. Barker, 53 Ohio St. 2d 135, 372 N.E.2d 1324 (1978), paragraph one
of the syllabus, cited in Taylor at 749; Cincinnati v. Blair, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-
6
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
060045 and C-060046, 2006-Ohio-6619, ¶ 10, citing State v. Darrah, 64 Ohio St. 2d
22, 26, 412 N.E.2d 1328 (1980).
{¶19} In this case, it was undisputed that Officer Carnine’s initial detention
of Hall in the back of his cruiser for safety reasons while he investigated the accident
was lawful. The first issue, then, is whether that lawful detention became an
unlawful arrest when the detention was prolonged for questioning related to the OVI
investigation and when the officer additionally restricted Hall’s use of her phone.
The trial court concluded that it did.
{¶20} In determining that Hall was unlawfully arrested, however, the trial
court relied on its erroneous factual determination that Officer Carnine had formally
placed Hall under arrest before she became belligerent and combative and refused to
perform field-sobriety tests. This finding was not supported by any evidence and was
clearly erroneous.
{¶21} When did the arrest occur? The uncontroverted evidence established
that Officer Carnine placed Hall under arrest only after she called him a “son-of-a-
bitch,” attempted to kick out the windows of the police cruiser, and refused to take
the tests, and that he had no intent to arrest her until then. According to the
testimony, Officer Carnine expressly told Hall that he was investigating her for OVI
immediately before she reacted with truculence.
{¶22} A police officer’s placement of a person in the back of a police vehicle
does not automatically transform an investigatory detention into a formal arrest that
requires probable cause. See Bennett v. Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 837-840 (6th
Cir.2005); Blair, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-060045 and C-060046, 2006-Ohio-6619,
at ¶ 15; Cincinnati v. Keiser, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060773, 2007-Ohio-4467, ¶ 7-
7
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
10. Nor should the continued detention require probable cause in all cases. See
State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St. 3d 403, 2007-Ohio-2204, 865 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 15.
{¶23} We are convinced that Officer Carnine lacked the requisite intent to
arrest Hall for OVI at any point before he formally placed her under arrest, and that
Hall could not have understood that she was under arrest before that time.
Therefore, the trial court erred in concluding that Hall was “arrested” during this
earlier time. See Barker, 53 Ohio St. 2d 135, 372 N.E.2d 1324, at syllabus; Blair at ¶
13 and 15; Keiser at ¶ 10.
{¶24} Continued detention supported by reasonable, articulated facts of
driving while impaired. Without a doubt, Hall was still detained in the police
cruiser for investigatory purposes when the officer asked her to submit to field-
sobriety tests and refused her request to use her phone. But this continued detention
was lawful. A lawful detention may be prolonged upon the discovery of additional
facts “that give rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity beyond
that which prompted the initial stop.” Batchili at ¶ 15.
{¶25} Here, the continued detention was supported by specific facts that
gave rise to the suspicion that Hall had driven while impaired. The officer testified
that he had noticed a strong odor of alcohol inside his police cruiser when he
returned from investigating the accident, and that when he asked Hall about her
drinking, she had first denied it and later confirmed it. These facts placed the
officer’s previous observances—including Hall’s difficulty with her balance and her
admission to driving the vehicle that had been involved in a single-car accident—in a
different light.
{¶26} Ultimately, the officer’s reasonable suspicion and the safety concerns
related to the location of the scene of the accident justified Hall’s continued
8
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
detention in the back of the officer’s cruiser for the OVI investigation. And the
officer’s refusal to allow Hall to use her phone during that short investigation was a
minimal restraint that enabled the officer to complete the investigation. The officer’s
reasonable suspicion justified the scope of this intrusion under the circumstances.
See Royer, 460 U.S. at 500, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229.
{¶27} In summary, accepting the properly-supported findings, we are
convinced that no arrest, formal or de facto, occurred until after Hall acted
belligerently and combatively and refused to perform field-sobriety tests, and that
she was lawfully detained before that time. Therefore, Hall’s truculence and refusal
are part of the totality of the circumstances examined in determining whether a
reasonable officer had probable cause to arrest Hall for OVI.
{¶28} Did the officer have probable cause to arrest? The question remains
as to whether Officer Carnine had probable cause to justify the arrest of Hall. In the
OVI context, courts must determine whether, “at the moment of the arrest, the police
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
driving under the influence.” State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St. 3d 421, 427, 732 N.E.2d
952 (2000), superseded by statute on other grounds, quoted in Bryant, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-090546, 2010-Ohio-4474, ¶ 15.
{¶29} “Driving under the influence of alcohol” means that the offender had
operated a vehicle and had consumed alcohol in a quantity that had “adversely and
appreciably impair[ed] [her] actions or mental processes and deprive[d] [her] of that
clearness of intellect and control of [her]self which [s]he would otherwise have had.”
State v. Bakst, 30 Ohio App. 3d 141, 145, 506 N.E.2d 1208 (1st Dist.1986), quoted in
9
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
State v. Furguson, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-130173, C-130174 and C-130175, 2013-
Ohio-5388, ¶ 14.
{¶30} A defendant’s belligerence and combativeness may be a sign of
impairment. Furguson at ¶ 15; State v. Heitzenrater, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA98-06-
119, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5829 (Dec. 7, 1998) (defendant’s belligerent conduct
contributed to a determination that his OVI arrest was supported by probable cause);
Kirkland Hills v. Deir, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2004-L-005, 2005-Ohio-1563, ¶ 20
(defendant’s moods swings and uncooperative behavior, including swearing, could
be used to establish probable cause to arrest for OVI). And, when other
incriminating factors are present, the refusal to submit to a field-sobriety test can
serve as a factor in support of a finding of probable cause. Kinlin v. Kline, 749 F.3d
573, 580 (6th Cir.2014); State v. Carnes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140188, 2015-
Ohio-379, ¶ 14.
{¶31} Arrest was supported by probable cause. Here, Officer Carnine was
the only witness called at the suppression hearing, and the trial court never
questioned his credibility. The trial court’s findings included that Hall had been
involved in a single-car accident, she had trouble keeping her balance, there was a
strong odor of alcohol about her person, she admitted to consuming alcohol earlier
that night, and she responded belligerently and combatively when told that she could
not make a phone call and when asked to perform sobriety tests. This conduct
included kicking the windows of the police cruiser and calling the officer a “son-of-a-
bitch.” Additionally, Hall refused to perform the sobriety tests.
{¶32} We hold that in light of the totality of these circumstances, Hall’s
arrest was supported by probable cause. See Homan, 89 Ohio St. 3d at 427, 732
N.E.2d 952; Bakst, 30 Ohio App. 3d at 142, 506 N.E.2d 1208; Bryant; Heitzenrater.
10
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Because her arrest was supported by probable cause, the trial court erred by granting
Hall’s motion to suppress.
IV. Conclusion
{¶33} We sustain the state’s assignment of error, we reverse the trial court’s
judgment granting the motion to suppress, and we remand this cause to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with law and this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
FISCHER, P.J., and HENDON, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
11