City of Fairfield v. Thomas Kuebler
| Decision Date | 15 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | 95-LW-3030,CA94-08-169 |
| Parties | CITY OF FAIRFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee v. THOMAS KUEBLER, et al., Defendants-Appellants CASE |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Gerald G. Froelke, Fairfield City Prosecutor, 315 Society Bank Bldg., Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee.
Larry Keller, 7606 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45231, for defendants-appellants.
Defendant-appellant, Thomas Kuebler, appeals his conviction for driving under suspension.(fn1) On May 9, 1994, Officer John Crothers of the Fairfield Police Department observed the occupants of a white van used for carpet cleaning discharge cleaning material into a dry well in the City of Fairfield. Crothers issued a citation to the driver of the van, Tag Pendleton, for unlawful load dropping. After Pendleton was cited and Crothers left the area of the stop, he was advised that Pendleton's operators license was currently under a Financial Responsibility Act (FRA) suspension.
On May 25, 1994, Crothers again observed a white carpet cleaning van which he believed to be the "exact" same van that was operated by Pendleton on May 9, 1994. After a registration check, Crothers found that the van was registered to the same corporation as the van that he had encountered on May 9, 1994. Crothers believed the driver was again Tag Pendleton. Based upon this information, Crothers stopped the van. As he approached the van, Crothers recalled that the general description of the driver he stopped on May 9, 1994 was a man having blond hair. Appellant, the driver of the van on May 25, 1994, also had blond hair. The record indicates that on both occasions there were two occupants in the van. Crothers approached the van and asked appellant for his driver's license. Appellant advised Crothers that he did not have it and provided him with a name and social security number. Crothers radioed the police dispatcher to verify the validity of the information provided to him by appellant. While Crothers was awaiting a response from the dispatcher, he was advised by appellant that the name of the person he stopped on May 9, 1994 was Tag Pendleton. The dispatcher responded that the name and social security number matched, and also advised Crothers that appellant's driver's license was under suspension. Appellant was arrested for operating the van while under FRA suspension. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence which was overruled by the trial court.
Appellant now appeals setting forth the following assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT BY OVERRULING HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITU-TION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION IV OF THE OHIO STATE CONSTITUTION.
Appellant contends that Crothers lacked sufficient articulable facts to make the initial stop of the vehicle. In order to conduct an investigative stop of a motor vehicle, a police officer must have articulable and reasonable suspicion that the motorist is engaged in criminal activity or is operating his vehicle in viola-tion of the law. Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1401; State v. Brandenburg (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 109, 110. "The propriety of an investigative stop must be viewed in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances." State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 178; State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291, syllabus.
In justifying a particular intrusion, a police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant that intrusion. The facts must be judged against an objective standard of whether the facts available to the officer, at the time of the seizure or search, would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879-81. An appellate court may not disturb a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress where it is supported by substantial credible evidence. Maumee v. Johnson (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 169, 171; State v. Wingered (1974), 40 Ohio App.2d 236, 238; State v. Emerson (Mar. 6, 1995), Clermont App. No. CA94-11-093, unreported, at 3. A trial court serves as the trier of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial