State v. Macklin , 2018 Ohio 2975 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Macklin, 2018-Ohio-2975.]
COURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 17-CA-39
:
COREY K. MACKLIN :
:
:
Defendant-Appellee : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County
Municipal Court, Case No. TRC 17
04125
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 25, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee:
MITCHELL R. HARDEN RICHARD A.L. PIATT
LANCASTER LAW DEPARTMENT 713 South Front St.
136 W. Main St. Columbus, OH 43206
Lancaster, OH 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 2
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant state of Ohio appeals from the August 30, 2017 Entry of the
Fairfield County Municipal Court sustaining the motion to suppress of appellee Corey K.
Macklin.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶1} The following facts are adduced from the record of the suppression hearing
on July 28, 2017. Prior to the suppression hearing, the parties stipulated the issues to be
heard were “simply reasonable suspicion and probable cause to arrest.” T. 5.
{¶2} This case arose on April 3, 2017, around 4:10 a.m., when Sgt. Jason
Bontrager of the Pickerington Police Department was on routine patrol on State Route
256 at 695 Hill Road North in Fairfield County. Bontrager observed a car in a parking-lot
driveway with a female standing nearby. Bontrager observed that the vehicle had heavy
front-end damage and stopped to ask the driver, identified as appellee, whether she had
been in an accident. Appellee replied that she thought she had a broken axle.
{¶3} Bontrager believed the damage to be worse than a broken axle and asked
appellee what caused the vehicle’s airbags to deploy. Appellee responded that she
thought she might have fallen asleep at the wheel. Appellee was wearing slippers and
what Bontrager described as “bed clothes.” She said she had been working at Tim
Hortons and hadn’t had any sleep, and she may have fallen asleep at the wheel.
{¶4} Bontrager observed tire marks going off the roadway “to the side over by a
creek.” Bontrager realized he was investigating a crash and not merely a disabled
vehicle. He found appellee’s attitude to be “odd” because she was “nonchalant,” “not
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 3
really caring,” and “laissez-faire” despite the fact that her vehicle apparently drove through
a creek.
{¶5} Bontrager did not smell any odor of alcohol. He noted appellee’s eyes were
“droopy” and her pupils were dilated; at times she slurred her speech. He asked where
appellee was coming from and she said she had worked at Tim Hortons and was tired
because she hadn’t slept. Bontrager asked if appellee had smoked marijuana recently
but she said she had not “for a day or so.” T. 14. Appellee denied having any head
injuries and refused medical attention.
{¶6} After describing the circumstances above, appellant attempted to question
Bontrager about the administration of standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs). We note
portions of the record are unintelligible and therefore not transcribed. Bontrager testified
he was originally trained on the 2013 version of the NHTSA manual but not, apparently,
the version of the manual the prosecutor tried to question him about. Appellee objected
and the trial court ruled Bontrager could not testify as an expert about the SFSTs. Instead,
he could testify to his general “observations.” Bontrager then testified appellee swayed
back and forth and couldn’t keep her balance.
{¶7} Bontrager arrested appellee based upon the evidence of her dilated pupils,
droopy eyes, slurred speech, impaired movement, and “carefree attitude” about a serious
crash, combined with the fact that the vehicle had gone off the roadway.
{¶8} After appellee was arrested, a marijuana pipe was found in her pocket and
a vehicle inventory turned up baggies containing “vegetation.”
{¶9} On August 30, 2017, via Entry, the trial court sustained appellee’s motion
to suppress, finding in pertinent part:
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 4
* * * *.
An accident at approximately 4:00 a.m. does not give rise to
an OVI investigation. There must be other factors that indicate that the
driver was impaired. In the present case, there is no smell of alcohol, there
is no indication of drugs, there is no admission of drugs, there is simply an
accident wherein the axle was broken, the air bags deployed and the
windshield was cracked. Without some other indication of there being
impairment at the time of driving, the investigation cannot be expanded.
Wherefore, the Court finds that there was no reasonable suspicion to
expand the stop to an OVI investigation and, therefore, sustains the
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress any evidence gathered thereafter
regarding the OVI investigation.
* * * *.
{¶10} Appellant now appeals from the trial court’s decision granting appellee’s
motion to suppress.1
{¶11} Appellant raises one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶12} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE OFFICER LACKED
REASONABLE, ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO CONDUCT FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS,
AND HENCE ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.”
1 Appellant filed a Crim.R.12(K) certification on September 1, 2017.
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 5
ANALYSIS
{¶13} In the sole assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court incorrectly
decided Bontrager did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to expand the crash
investigation by asking appellee to submit to field sobriety testing. We agree.
Standard of Review
{¶14} Appellate review of a trial court's decision to deny a motion to suppress
involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Long, 127 Ohio App. 3d 328, 332, 713
N.E.2d 1 (4th Dist.1998). During a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role
of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to
evaluate witness credibility. State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St. 3d 148, 154, 661 N.E.2d 1030
(1996). A reviewing court is bound to accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are
supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App. 3d 142, 145,
675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th Dist.1996). Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must
independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court's
conclusion, whether the trial court's decision meets the applicable legal standard. State
v. Williams, 86 Ohio App. 3d 37, 42, 619 N.E.2d 1141 (4th Dist.1993), overruled on other
grounds.
{¶15} There are three methods of challenging a trial court's ruling on a motion to
suppress on appeal. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's finding of fact. In
reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether the trial
court's findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. See, State v.
Fanning, 1 Ohio St. 3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982); State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App. 3d 486,
597 N.E.2d 1141 (4th Dist.1991). Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 6
apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate
court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. See, Williams, supra.
{¶16} Finally, an appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the
ultimate or final issues raised in a motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim,
an appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court's
conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State
v. Curry, 95 Ohio App. 3d 93, 96, 620 N.E.2d 906 (8th Dist.1994).
{¶17} In the instant case, appellant argues the trial court incorrectly decided the
ultimate issue: whether Bontrager had reasonable suspicion to ask appellee to perform
field sobriety tests. Our standard of review is thus de novo. State v. Reed, 5th Dist. No.
16CA50, 2017-Ohio-2644, 90 N.E.3d 222, ¶ 27, citing State v. Levengood, 2016-Ohio-
1340, 61 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 17. The trial court found that the totality of the circumstances did
not support Bontrager’s expansion of the encounter into an OVI investigation. Our review
of the record includes the transcript of the suppression hearing, at which Bontrager was
the only witness. Exhibits admitted at the suppression hearing include the uniform traffic
citation and the BMV 2255 form, but we are without the benefit of videotape evidence of
any portion of the investigation and arrest.
{¶18} We are charged with independently determining, without deference to the
trial court's conclusion, whether the facts before us on the record meet the appropriate
legal standard. Levengood, supra, 2016-Ohio-1340 at ¶ 29, citing State v. Curry, 95 Ohio
App.3d 93, 96, 641 N.E.2d 1172 (8th Dist.1994).
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 7
Findings of Fact Supported by Record
{¶19} We are bound to accept factual determinations of the trial court so long as
they are supported by competent and credible evidence, and the evaluation of evidence
and the credibility of the witnesses are issues for the trier of fact in the hearing on the
motion to suppress. State v. Myer, 5th Dist. Perry No. 16–CA–00007, 2017–Ohio–1046,
¶ 15, citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St. 3d 357, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992). Our role in reviewing
a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is not to reevaluate the evidence or the
credibility of the witnesses, but to determine whether the trial court's application of the law
to the facts, as the trial court found them to be, is appropriate. Myer, supra, at ¶ 16, citing
Mills, 62 Ohio St. 3d at 366; State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App. 3d 37, 41, 619 N.E.2d 1141
(4th Dist. 1993).
{¶20} The trial court’s findings of fact contained in the judgment entry sustaining
the motion to suppress are supported by competent, credible evidence in the record, but
we disagree with the application of the law to those facts.
Appellant Established Reasonable Articulable Suspicion
{¶21} The instant case does not arise from a traffic “stop” because appellee’s
vehicle was already crashed and disabled when Bontrager came upon it. His crash
investigation, though, expanded into an investigation of a possible OVI upon his contact
with appellee.
{¶22} A request made of a validly-detained motorist to perform field sobriety tests
is generally outside the scope of the original stop, and must be separately justified by
other specific and articulable facts showing a reasonable basis for the request. State v.
Albaugh, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2014 AP 11 0049, 2015-Ohio-3536, 2015 WL
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 8
5096900, ¶ 18, quoting State v. Anez, 108 Ohio Misc.2d 18, 26–27, 738 N.E.2d 491
(2000). Although requiring a driver to submit to a field sobriety test constitutes a seizure
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, courts have generally held that the intrusion
on the driver's liberty resulting from a field sobriety test is minor, and the officer therefore
need only have reasonable suspicion that the driver is under the influence of alcohol (or
another drug) in order to conduct a field sobriety test. See State v. Bright, 5th Dist.
Guernsey No. 2009–CA–28, 2010-Ohio-1111, ¶ 17, citing State v. Knox, 2nd Dist. Greene
No. 2005–CA–74, 2006-Ohio-3039, 2006 WL 1661628. Under a “totality of the
circumstances” approach, we look at the entirety of the events leading to the officer’s
decision to conduct field sobriety tests. See, e.g., State v. Locker, 5th Dist. Stark App.
No. 2015CA00050, 2015-Ohio-4953, 2015 WL 7738365, ¶ 36, citing State v. Freeman,
64 Ohio St. 2d 291, 414 N.E.2d 1044 (1980).
{¶23} “Reasonable suspicion is “* * * something more than an inchoate or
unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but less than the level of suspicion required for
probable cause.” State v. Shepherd, 122 Ohio App. 3d 358, 364, 701 N.E.2d 778 (2nd
Dist.1997). “A court will analyze the reasonableness of the request based on the totality
of the circumstances, viewed through the eyes of a reasonable and prudent police officer
on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Farey, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2017CA00137, 2018-Ohio-1466, ¶ 23, citing Village of Kirtland Hills v. Strogin, 6th Dist.
Lake App. No.2005–L–073, 2006-Ohio-1450, 2006 WL 766541, ¶ 13 (internal citation
omitted).
{¶24} In analyzing similar cases, we have accepted the template set forth by the
Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St. 3d 403, 2007–Ohio–2204, 865
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 9
N.E.2d 1282, paragraph two of the syllabus: “The ‘reasonable and articulable’ standard
applied to a prolonged traffic stop encompasses the totality of the circumstances, and a
court may not evaluate in isolation each articulated reason for the stop” (emphasis
added). The intrusion on the drivers' liberty resulting from a field sobriety test is minor,
and the officer therefore need only have reasonable suspicion the driver is under the
influence of alcohol in order to conduct a field sobriety test. State v. Knox, Greene App.
No. 2005–CA–74, 2006–Ohio–3039. See also, State v. Bright, 5th Dist. Guernsey App.
No. 2009–CA–28, 2010–Ohio–1111.
{¶25} Appellant argues Bontrager had reasonable and articulable suspicion of
further criminal activity in addition to the fact of the crash that would justified an OVI
investigation and administration of field sobriety tests.
{¶26} Appellant highlights the totality of the circumstances Bontrager testified to
as a “particularized and objective basis” to suspect appellee was impaired, including: the
early morning hours (4:10 a.m.); the disabled condition of the vehicle and evidence it had
gone entirely off the road and through a creek; appellee’s “droopy” eyes and dilated
pupils; her slurred speech; her unusually nonchalant response to the severity of the crash;
her behavior in walking away from the officer and inability to focus on his questions; and
swaying back and forth, unable to keep her balance.2
{¶27} Appellee cites to this court's decision in State v. Hall, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2015 CA 00213, 2016-Ohio-5787, 70 N.E.3d 1154, in which we found the officer had no
reasonable basis to ask a defendant to perform field sobriety testing [“post-midnight”
2Appellant also cites appellee’s admission to using marijuana “within the last day or so,”
but it is unclear to us from the record whether this statement was made prior to or after
arrest. T. 14, 38, 56.
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 10
traffic stop for single marked-lanes violation, odors of alcoholic beverage and marijuana
emanating from vehicle interior, “red, watery, bloodshot eyes,” but no other indicia of
intoxication]. We find the facts of the case sub judice to be distinguishable. Farey, supra,
5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00137, 2018-Ohio-1466, ¶ 25. In the instant case, we find
appellee’s odd behavior, slurred speech, dilated pupils, and the manner and severity of
the crash are potentially indicia of intoxication or impairment by some other drug.
{¶28} The trial court and appellee stress the absence of any odor of an alcoholic
beverage or of marijuana, but this fact is not dispositive in evaluating the officer’s
reasonable suspicion. First, we are instructed not to view any single factor in isolation.
Batchili, supra, 113 Ohio St. 3d 403 at paragraph two of the syllabus. Second, as we
noted in Farey, “[o]dor of alcohol * * * * is but one consideration in an officer's decision to
administer field sobriety tests. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) prohibits driving under the influence both
alcohol and drugs. As was borne out in this matter, a motorist may display signs of
intoxication from prohibited levels of substances other than alcohol.” Id. In the instant
case, Bontrager testified that he didn’t suspect alcohol intoxication at any point in the
investigation. T. 49-50.
{¶29} Appellee also cites our decision in State v. Keserich, in which we found no
reasonable, articulable suspicion when the defendant was pulled over for an equipment
violation, his eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and he admitted to drinking. 5th Dist.
Ashland No. 14–COA–011, 2014–Ohio–5120. That case is similar to this one in that the
officer did not detect an odor of an alcoholic beverage, but it is distinguishable because
of the severity and manner of the crash in the case sub judice. In Keserich, we stated it
was “of utmost significance to our decision” the fact that “the arresting officer did not
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 11
observe any moving violation, let alone a de minimis one, regarding appellant's operation
of his vehicle,” as “the stop was based solely upon an equipment violation.” Id.
{¶30} In the instant case, Bontrager testified to significant evidence of erratic
driving: the vehicle was completely disabled, the air bags had deployed, and tracks
indicated the vehicle had traveled through a creek bed. He described the crash as
“serious,” one which could have killed appellee or someone else. Appellee said she
wasn’t injured and did not complain of head injuries, but her behavior was “bizarre” during
the encounter: she seemed untroubled by the severity of the crash and was unable to
remain still to respond to Bontrager’s questions. Her explanation that she fell asleep
behind the wheel was plausible, but further statements that she came from work at Tim
Hortons is inconsistent with Bontrager’s observations that she was wearing “bed clothes”
and slippers. Appellee’s eyelids were droopy, her pupils were dilated, and the crash
occurred in the early-morning hours. While all of these elements could indicate a driver
fell asleep behind the wheel, taken together, they also establish reasonable articulable
suspicion for Bontrager to ask appellee to submit to field sobriety testing.
{¶31} In short, appellant established reasonable articulable suspicion despite the
absence of some evidence typically found in OVI cases, such as an odor of an alcoholic
beverage or marijuana. But as we noted in Cook, supra, 2007-Ohio-707, at ¶ 19, [odor
of burnt marijuana, no erratic driving, no slurred speech or bloodshot eyes], the driver
“need not display every possible indication of being under the influence in order for
reasonable, articulable suspicion grounds to exist for [an officer] to proceed with the field
sobriety testing.” See also, State v. Edwards, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2003 AP 09 077,
2003-Ohio-870, at ¶ 11-12.
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 12
{¶32} In another case, we relied strongly upon video evidence of interaction
between a driver and an officer; the defendant revealed no apparent signs of impairment,
but the investigating officer reported other factors that led him to investigate further,
including the odor of marijuana. Although we ultimately found the officer did not have
probable cause to arrest the defendant, we noted the factors cited by the officer did
provide reasonable and articulable suspicion for him to investigate further, including
administration of field sobriety tests. State v. Kopp, 5th Dist. No. 16-CA-96, 2017-Ohio-
4428, 93 N.E.3d 199, ¶ 22 [rear license plate out, odor of marijuana, no visible signs of
impairment].
{¶33} The trial court concluded that an accident at 4:00 a.m. does not give rise to
an OVI investigation. When evaluating the question of reasonable articulable suspicion
to further investigate, though, the cause and manner of the accident is highly relevant.
As one portion of the totality of the circumstances, “viewed through the eyes of a
reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they
unfold,” the crash combined with appellee’s demeanor, pursuant to the facts testified to
by Bontrager, gave him reasonable articulable suspicion to ask her to submit to field
sobriety tests. Whether appellant’s evidence establishes probable cause for an OVI
arrest, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, are not questions addressed here.
It is well-established that an officer's reasonable articulable suspicion does not require
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's conduct has satisfied the elements
of the offense. State v. Hall, 5th Dist. No. 2015 CA 00213, 2016-Ohio-5787, 70 N.E.3d
1154, ¶ 17, citing State v. Willis, 5th Dist. Licking No. 14 CA 103, 2015-Ohio-3739, 2015
WL 5334283, ¶ 25, internal citation omitted.
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 13
{¶34} The issue presented by this appeal is a narrow one, and we rely upon
evidence from a truncated suppression hearing to reach our conclusion, solely on the
grounds of Bontrager’s reasonable articulable suspicion to investigate further. Whether
the evidence supports probable cause for an OVI arrest is a separate issue which was
not reached in the suppression hearing before the trial court.
{¶35} Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find Bontrager “relied on
specific articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion [appellee] was driving under
the influence; justifying an extension of the initial detention for the performance of field
sobriety testing.” State v. Ciminello, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 17-COA-030, 2018-Ohio-467,
¶ 25 [speed between 5 and 11 miles over limit at 2:09 a.m., moderate odor of alcohol,
glassy red eyes, admission of coming from bar and having one beer].
{¶36} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
Fairfield County, Case No. 17-CA-39 14
CONCLUSION
{¶37} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained. The August 30, 2017
Entry of the Fairfield County Municipal Court is reversed and the matter is remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
By: Delaney, J.,
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.