This case began in July 2010 when the New Philadelphia Police Department
(NPPD) received a report that someone may have been trying to open the
doors of cars parked outside a residence. When an officer arrived at the
scene, he noticed a car speeding away from the area where the suspicious
activity took place. He decided to pursue and stop the vehicle to identify
the driver, and ascertain whether or not he may have been involved. The
officer noted that the driver smelled strongly of alcohol, that his eyes
were bloodshot and that there were open containers of beer in the back
of the car. The officer decided to investigate the matter further, because
he became suspicious after the driver admitted he was on his way home,
but was in fact driving in the opposite direction of his home.
After taking various field sobriety tests, he was arrested and then asked
to submit to a breath test. His blood alcohol content was measured at
.193 percent. The driver was also tied to calls of erratic driving the
NPPD received earlier that same day. The defendant appealed his conviction
on this assignment of error: that the trial court erred in overruling
his motion to suppress. In this
OVI prosecution, it was error to deny motion to suppress since officer did
not have reasonable articulable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle
where stop was prompted by complaint that people were breaking into cars,
but officer did not see defendant commit any offense.
Call or text 614-884-1100 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form
