State v. Hatfield
| Decision Date | 09 February 1965 |
| Citation | 1 Ohio App.2d 346,204 N.E.2d 574 |
| Parties | , 30 O.O.2d 350 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HATFIELD, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Marshall E. Peterson, Xenia, for appellee.
Baggott & Johnston, Dayton, for appellant.
Defendant, appellant herein, was convicted in County Court of operating a motor vehicle while in a state of intoxication in violation of Section 4511.19, Revised Code.
According to the evidence, a state highway patrolman found defendant at approximately 1:30 a. m. on March 19, 1963, asleep and slumped over the steering wheel of his automobile which was sitting on the soft berm on the north side of State Highway No. 35, facing west, with the rear wheels partly sunk in mud and with the motor running.
The patrolman testified that he awakened the defendant, who was alone in the car, and asked him to turn off the motor, step out of the automobile, and put the keys in his pocket, which he did; that the patrolman detected a strong odor of alcohol on his breath; that his speech was mumbled and slurred; that he appeared tired, groggy and sleepy; that his suit was soiled, mussed and disarrayed and his tie pulled loose from his collar; that he staggered and nearly fell; that he admitted that he had been operating the automobile, but did not say when, and said he was coming from Kentucky, and had had an accident in West Virginia; and that he was placed in the patrolman's automobile and taken to the sheriff's office in Xenia.
There he was observed and interrogated, and he submitted to urinalysis and equilibrium tests. He again admitted that he had been driving the automobile, and said he had had three or four bottles of beer in West Virginia. The patrolman testified that he staggered, was unsteady and that, in his opinion, he was intoxicated and his ability to drive extremely impaired. A deputy sheriff furnished some corroboration. The coroner, who made the urinalysis, testified there was twenty-two hundredths percent alcohol, whereas the dividing line for intoxication is fifteen hundredths per cent.
The first two assignments of error, appropriately argued together, are that the court erred in overruling defendant's motions to suppress the evidence and quash the affidavit made both prior to the trial and at the outset of the trial, and in overruling his motions to dismiss the case and suppress the evidence after the opening statement of the prosecution.
The essence of defendant's argument is that he was illegally arrested without a warrant because the offense charged, a misdemeanor, was not committed in the presence of the arresting officer as required by Section 2935.03, Revised Code, and that consequently no evidence obtained from him while under arrest may be received without violation of his constitutional rights.
It is conceded that whatever power of arrest without a warrant the patrolman had is derived from Section 5503.02, Revised Code, pertaining to the highway patrol, and Section 2935.03, Revised Code, pertaining to other law enforcement officers, which defendant agrees is also applicable.
Defendant's brief reflects diligent research and contains skillful analysis and presentation. It is argued that defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated by an officer who did not actually see him committing that offense. It is no answer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coles
...arrested by such officer without a warrant, regardless of what charge, if any, is thereafter made against him. State v. Hatfield, 1 Ohio App.2d 346, 204 N.E.2d 574. The holding in State v. Hatfield, supra dispels the idea that subterfuge is a defense unless the evidence is clear and unequiv......
-
State v. Mark E. Noe
... ... appellant's arrest ab initio. Indeed, the law is clearly ... to the contrary. Whether or not charges are ever filed has no ... effect on the validity of the original arrest. See Oregon v ... Szakovits (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 271, 276-277; State v ... Hatfield (1965), 1 Ohio App. 2d 346, 348 ... II ... The ... second issue in this appeal concerns the validity of the ... inventory search of appellant's vehicle. Appellant argues ... that the search of his motor home, subsequent to his arrest, ... ...
-
State v. Hardaway, 2005 Ohio 3017 (OH 6/16/2005), 85100.
...{¶ 29} Finally, validity of this initial arrest would not be affected by subsequent charges, or lack of charges, State v. Hatfield (1965), 1 Ohio App.2d 346, or acquittal of charged offenses. State v. Boyce (Oct. 12, 1978), Cuyahoga App. No. {¶ 30} This assignment of error is without merit.......
-
City of Oregon v. Szakovits
...aspect of the case I am in full agreement with the following statement of Crawford, J., in State v. Hatfield (1965), 1 Ohio App.2d 346, at pages 347 and 348, 204 N.E.2d 574, at pages 575, 576: '* * * It is argued that defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated by an officer who di......