State v. Heinrichs
| Decision Date | 01 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1190,1190 |
| Citation | 46 Ohio App.3d 63,545 N.E.2d 1304 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HEINRICHS, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A police stop of a motor vehicle is a significant intrusion requiring justification as a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. At the very least, such justification requires that the stopping officer have "specific and articulable facts" indicating that the stop is reasonable.
2. An otherwise unlawful investigative stop cannot be justified with reference to the quantity or quality of the evidence of guilt resulting therefrom.
Jonathan P. Hein, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Larry J. Denny, for appellant.
Defendant-appellant, Herbert L. Heinrichs, appeals from his conviction and sentence for DWI. Heinrichs argues that the arresting officer had insufficient cause to stop him; thus, his motion to suppress should have been granted. We agree. Because it is clear from the record that all of the evidence against Heinrichs resulted from the arresting officer's stop, Heinrichs' conviction is reversed and he is ordered discharged.
Sheriff's Deputy William E. Grice was conducting a routine patrol of the Greenville Country Club ("country club") at about 1:00 a.m. on July 29, 1986. Although he was aware of "alarm drops" that had been registered from the country club in the past, and was concerned about possible theft and vandalism, he had no more concern about the possibility of theft and vandalism occurring at the country club that particular night than elsewhere on his beat.
When Deputy Grice was about one hundred feet inside the entrance to the country club access drive he noticed a car coming towards him in the opposite direction. This was the car driven by Heinrichs. Deputy Grice noticed that the car coming towards him had Champaign County license plates. Deputy Grice turned on his flashing lights, effecting a stop of Heinrichs' vehicle.
After both vehicles came to a stop alongside each other, Deputy Grice rolled down his window and asked Heinrichs if there were any vehicles back at the country club. At this time, Deputy Grice could not observe more than just the roof of the country club, did not know if the country club was closed or open, and would not have known if there had been as many as one hundred cars parked at the country club.
Heinrichs' response to the deputy's inquiry was, "How in the fuck should I know." Deputy Grice then asked Heinrichs, "Didn't you just come from back there?" To this question Heinrichs answered, "Hell, I don't know."
The incongruity of Heinrichs' evasive and profane answers contrasted with his well-dressed appearance and nice-looking vehicle led the deputy to park his cruiser, walk back to Heinrichs' vehicle, and ask to see his license. Deputy Grice had to move his cruiser because at the point of the initial stop he was too close to Heinrichs' vehicle to open his door.
When Grice walked up to Heinrichs' car and approached within a foot of Heinrichs, he detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage. Deputy Grice asked Heinrichs if he had been drinking, to which Heinrichs answered that he "had had a couple of drinks." At this point, Deputy Grice asked Heinrichs to exit his vehicle to take a field sobriety test.
What happened next was beyond the scope of the suppression hearing, and cannot be determined from the record. Ultimately, however, Heinrichs was charged with violating R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), the DWI statute. Heinrichs moved to suppress all of the evidence obtained as a result of the stop of his vehicle on the grounds that the stop violated his rights under the search and seizure provisions of the federal and state Constitutions. After a hearing, the trial court denied Heinrichs' motion to suppress.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Heinrichs pled no contest was found guilty, and was sentenced accordingly. From his conviction and sentence, Heinrichs appeals.
Heinrichs' sole assignment of error is as follows:
"The trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to suppress evidence, thereby violating appellant's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14, of the Ohio Constitution."
Heinrichs' motion to suppress was based on the investigative stop of his vehicle. We find it unnecessary, in view of our disposition of his assignment of error, to determine whether Deputy Grice had sufficient probable cause to arrest Heinrichs on suspicion of DWI. We are concerned solely with the question of whether Deputy Grice had sufficient cause to make the initial stop.
A police stop of a motor vehicle is a significant intrusion requiring justification as a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1395, 59 L.Ed.2d 660. At the very least, such justification requires that the stopping officer have " 'specific and articulable facts' " indicating that the stop is reasonable. State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 61, 11 OBR 250, 251, 463 N.E.2d 1237, 1239.
In the case before us, it is clear from the record that Deputy Grice intended to, and did, effect an investigative stop of the vehicle being driven by Heinrichs when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Ohio v. Parker
...U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660; State v. Gedeon (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 617, 618, 611 N.E.2d 972; State v. Heinrichs (1988), 46 Ohio App.3d 63, 545 N.E.2d 1304; U.S. v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 721. Whether reasonable grounds for a stop exist ......
-
State v. Keith B. Hawes, 96-LW-0518
... ... State v. Freeman (1980), 84 Ohio St.2d ... 291, 294, 414 N.E.2d 1044. See, also, Delaware v ... Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 99 S.Ct ... 1391. State v. Brandenburg (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d ... 109, 534 N.E.2d 906; State v. Heinrichs (1988), 46 ... Ohio App.3d 63, 545 N.E.2d 1304." ... Thus, ... if specific and articulable facts exist that indicate that a ... criminal violation has occurred, or is occurring, a vehicle ... may be stopped and the driver detained for further ... ...
-
State v. Thomas M. Beard
... ... State v. Freeman (1980), 84 Ohio St.2d ... 291, 294, 414 N.E.2d 1044. See, also, Delaware v ... Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 99 S.Ct ... 1391. State v. Brandenburg (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d ... 109, 534 N.E.2d 906; State v. Heinrichs (1988), 46 ... Ohio App.3d 63, 545 N.E.2d 1304." ... Thus, ... if specific and articulable facts exist that indicate that a ... criminal violation has occurred, or is occurring, a vehicle ... may be stopped and the driver detained for further ... ...
-
State v. Retherford
...justification as a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and the Ohio Constitution. See State v. Heinrichs (1988), 46 Ohio App.3d 63, 65, 545 N.E.2d 1304, 1306, citing Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1395-1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 667. In the case at ......