State v. Kuno, 75-751
| Decision Date | 12 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-751,75-751 |
| Parties | , 75 O.O.2d 239 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. KUNO, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
David D. Kuno, appellant herein, is a long-distance turck driver employed by Navajo Freight Lines.
Kuno was driving to Cleveland from New Jersey on Interstate 80 with a load of propane gas when a State Highway Patrolman pulled him over to the side of the road. The patrolman's dispatcher had informed him that the defendant and his truck had bypassed the truck weighing scale. The patrolman directed the defendant to follow him back to the scale.
As they were enroute back to the scale, the patrolman was informed by the dispatcher that the defendant had stopped at the scale and that his truck was overweight. Thereupon, the patrolman again stopped the defendant. The defendant became extremely belligerent, using abusive language to such an extent that he was clearly attempting to instigate a fight. The patrolman placed the defendant under arrest on a charge of disorderly conduct (R.C. 2917.11), handcuffed him, and drove him back to the scale for identification.
At the scale, the two attendants identified the defendant and related their earlier experience with him. The first time the defendant went through the scale, the sealed automatic equipment indicated that the defendant was overweight on one axle. He was ordered by the attendants to go around and through the scale a second time. The second time through, the vehicle appeared to be legal. He was then ordered to park the vehicle behind the scale house and come in with his license and registration. Instead, the defendant drove back out onto the interstate highway, where the patrolman later apprehended him. Defendant was charged with a violation of R.C. 5577.04, exceeding the maximum axle load.
The trial court found appellant guilty of both the disorderly conduct charge and the overweight charge.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The cause is before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Emmor F. Snyder Girard, for appellee.
Mueller, Musitano & Haney and Thomas S. Haney, Akron, for appellant.
Appellant's initial contention in this court is that the highway patrol does not have the authority to enforce the general criminal laws under the facts of this case. This argument relates primarily to the disorderly conduct charge.
R.C. 5503.02 states, in part:
'* * * The superintendent (of the State Highway Patrol) or any patrolman may enforce the criminal laws on all state properties and state institutions, owned or leased by the state, and, when so ordered by the governor in the event of riot or insurrection, may, pursuant to sections 2935.03 to 2935.05 of the Revised Code, arrest offenders against the criminal laws wherever they may be found within the state where the violations occurred upon, or resulted in injury to persons or property on, state properties or institutions * * *.' (Emphasis added.)
Appellant emphasizes the latter part of this statute, urging that there was no riot or insurrection, nor any order of the Governor. This position ignores the fact that the violations occurred on state property (Interstate 80), and that the appellant was apprehended on the same state property. The patrolman was clearly within the terms of the first part of the language of R.C. 5503.02 quoted above. No order of the Governor was needed to allow arrest in this case.
Appellant next challenges the constitutionality of R.C. 2917.11, for the reason that it is not confined to fighting words. This contention is not properly before this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Summers
...Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 364 N.E.2d 1364 , vacated in part 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 3137, 57 L.Ed.2d 1156; State v. Kuno (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 203, 346 N.E.2d 768 . If the record does not reveal substantial compliance with this section, accomplished in a manner reasonably intelligi......
-
State v. Darrah
...preserve and otherwise protect the physical integrity of the various types of highways and roads in Ohio. See State v. Kuno (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 203, 205, 346 N.E.2d 768 (bypassing a weigh station sign is a misdemeanor). See, generally, Carlton v. Riddell (Ohio App.1955), 132 N.E.2d 772; F......
-
State v. Woodfork, 2005 Ohio 2469 (OH 5/16/2005), Case No. 04CA2798.
... ... State v. Fields (Dec. 2, 1996), Athens App. No. 96CA1742. See, also, State v. Kuno ... (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 203, 205-206, 346 N.E.2d 768 (information radioed to a highway patrol officer that a particular truck is overweight, even ... ...
-
State v. Butler
...St.3d 1545, 2005-Ohio-5343, 835 N.E.2d 727; State v. Fields, 4th Dist. No.96CA1742, 1996 WL 695582 (Dec. 2, 1996); State v. Kuno, 46 Ohio St.2d 203, 346 N.E.2d 768 (1976); State v. Chapa, supra. {¶50} In short, Sgt. Dore needed only a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity t......