City of Columbus v. Murchison, 84AP-575

Decision Date06 December 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84AP-575,84AP-575
Citation21 Ohio App.3d 75,486 N.E.2d 236,21 OBR 79
Parties, 21 O.B.R. 79 CITY OF COLUMBUS, Appellee, v. MURCHISON, Appellant. *
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. Whether a police officer who had been driving an unmarked vehicle, prior to his assisting in the arrest of a person charged with violating a traffic law, is competent to testify in the prosecution will depend upon whether the officer was on duty for the purpose of enforcing traffic laws, as contemplated by R.C. 4549.14 and Evid.R. 601(C).

2. In requiring police officers on traffic duty to be identified clearly, one of the safety concerns addressed by the General Assembly was the hazard to the public that inevitably would result should a police officer, not clearly identified as such, confront a driver and attempt to require him to follow the officer's instructions.

3. Where the arrested person was unaware of the officer's presence until after the person's vehicle was parked and he was approached by the officer while on foot and in uniform, the officer was not on duty within the contemplation of R.C. 4549.14 and Evid.R. 601(C) and was competent to testify.

Gregory S. Lashutka, City Atty., Ronald J. O'Brien, City Pros., and David E. Tingley, Columbus, for appellee.

Richard F. Swope, Reynoldsburg, for appellant.

NORRIS, Judge.

Defendant, Gerald E. Murchison, appeals his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Michael Turner, the police officer whose testimony at trial defendant sought to suppress, testified at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, that, while he normally worked as a detective in plain clothes, on October 25, 1983 he was off duty but was in uniform and in an unmarked car returning from having directed traffic on a special-duty assignment; that he observed an automobile being operated in an erratic fashion and followed it; that he radioed for a police cruiser as he believed he was following a driver who was under the influence of alcohol; that the driver continued his erratic operation and finally drove into the side yard of a house; that he thought the driver had arrived at his home and so advised the police radio dispatcher there was no longer a need for a cruiser; that he left his unmarked car parked along the curb and approached the vehicle "to make sure that he was home and he did get in his house and he did not continue to drive"; that defendant, the driver, did not know where he was; that he then radioed for a cruiser; and that defendant was placed under arrest by a police officer who later arrived in a marked cruiser.

When the trial court overruled his motion, defendant entered a plea of no contest and was found guilty.

Defendant raises one assignment of error:

"The trial court erred in overruling the defendant's Motion to Suppress the testimony of Michael E. Turner, pursuant to Rule 601(C), Ohio Rules of Evidence, and Section 4549.16 [sic ], Revised Code."

By his assignment of error, defendant contends that the officer was not competent to testify at trial since he had not been using a marked police cruiser. Several statutes are relevant to the resolution of the issue raised by the assignment of error:

R.C. 4549.13 provides in part:

"Any motor vehicle used by * * * any * * * [police] officer, while said officer is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, shall be marked in some distinctive manner or color * * *."

R.C. 4549.14 provides:

"Any officer arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, a person charged with violating the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, such officer being on duty exclusively or for the main purpose of enforcing such laws, is incompetent to testify as a witness in any prosecution against such arrested person if such officer at the time of the arrest was using a motor vehicle not marked in accordance with section 4549.13 of the Revised Code."

Evid.R. 601(C) restates the provisions of R.C. 4549.14.

Because it is uncontroverted that Officer Turner was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT