State v. Frye, 1952
| Decision Date | 24 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 1952,1952 |
| Citation | 21 Ohio App.3d 133,487 N.E.2d 580,21 OBR 141 |
| Parties | , 21 O.B.R. 141 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. FRYE, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A police officer has no authority to detain the driver of an automobile in order to check the driver's license and the registration of the automobile once he has determined that the driver has not violated any law.
Peggy J. Schmitz, Orrville, for appellee.
Thomas T. Flynn, Rittman, for appellant.
The defendant, William Frye, was convicted for driving with a suspended license. His sole assignment of error is that the police officer who stopped him lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop him. This court reverses the conviction.
An officer of the Rittman Police Department stopped Frye because one of Frye's taillights was not working. The officer then ran a check of Frye's operator's license and registration pursuant to the routine practice of the Rittman Police Department. The check revealed that Frye was driving with a suspended license in violation of R.C. 4507.38. The officer then issued Frye a citation for the violation.
In the trial court Frye filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained against him during the stop for the reason that no probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed for the officer to stop him. The motion was submitted to the court without a hearing upon the stipulation that Frye was stopped because of his taillight being out. The trial court overruled the motion holding that there was probable cause to stop Frye and to subsequently run the license and registration check. Frye then pled no contest to the charge and was found guilty. Frye now appeals.
The United States Supreme Court in Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, set out the standard to be used in determining whether an automobile stop and license check are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court held at 663, 99 S.Ct. at 1401:
" * * * that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. * * * "
Frye contends that because under R.C. 4513.05 and Rittman City Ordinance No. 337.04, a driver is only required to have one taillight, the officer in this case had no "articulable and reasonable suspicion" that he was violating the law. Frye also relies on State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 463 N.E.2d 1237, where the Ohio Supreme Court held that an officer could not detain a driver for a license check once the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Venham
...Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 63, 463 N.E.2d 1237 [1240]; Fairborn v. Orrick, supra [49 Ohio App.3d], at 95 ; State v. Frye (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 133 , 487 N.E.2d 580; State v. Keathley [ (1988), 55 Ohio App.3d 130], at 131-32 Thus, if a suspect's detention is prolonged and the investi......
-
Warrensville Hts. v. Mollick
...detention by a police officer. Fairborn v. Orrick (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 94, 550 N.E.2d 488; see, also, State v. Frye (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 133, 21 OBR 141, 487 N.E.2d 580, where, on facts closely analogous to those of the case sub judice, the court relied on Chatton to overturn a convicti......
-
State v. Ford, s. CA-3435
...license and the registration of the vehicle once he had determined that the driver has not violated any law. State v. Frye, 21 Ohio App.3d 133 [21 OBR 141, 487 N.E.2d 580] (1985) and Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391 "8. It is, therefore, the conclusion of the Court that reaso......
-
State v. Norman R. Vannest, 95-LW-5087
...the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop appellee. State v. Ackley (June 5, 1987), Ross App. No. 1343, unreported, 1987 WL 12455, citing Frye." in Guysinger we held that because R.C. 4513.05 and 4513.071 require that vehicles be equipped with one taillight and one brake light, the arresti......