State v. Phillips, 2006 Ohio 6338 (Ohio App. 12/4/2006)
| Decision Date | 04 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 8-04-25.,8-04-25. |
| Citation | 2006 Ohio 6338 |
| Parties | State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Benny E. Phillips, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
William T. Goslee, Chief City Prosecutor, Reg. #0041924, 226 West Columbus Avenue, Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311, for Appellant.
William E. Shirk, Attorney at Law, Reg. #0006503, 185 South Main Street, Lakeview, Ohio 43331, for Appellee.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, the State of Ohio appeals the judgment of the Bellefontaine Municipal Court granting Defendant-Appellee's, Benny E. Phillips', motion to suppress all evidence relating to charges brought against him after a traffic stop. Finding that Phillips' crossing of the right white edge line did not provide either probable cause or a reasonable articulable suspicion to commence a traffic stop and that there was not competent credible evidence to support a violation of R.C. 4513.05(A), we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} In April of 2004, Phillips was charged with failure to obey a traffic control device in violation of R.C. 4511.12 and operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1). Phillips pled not guilty to both charges.
{¶3} In May of 2004, Phillips filed a motion to suppress any evidence relating to the violations of R.C. 4511.12 and R.C. 4511.19, asserting that the state trooper did not have a reasonable suspicion to believe that he was operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and that there was no probable cause to stop or arrest him for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or for failure to obey a traffic control device.
{¶4} In June of 2004, Phillips filed an additional motion to suppress any evidence relating to the violations of R.C. 4511.12 and R.C. 4511.19, asserting
that the field sobriety tests were not conducted in strict compliance with the standardized testing procedures of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.1
{¶5} On June 18, 2004, the trial court held a hearing on the two suppression motions. At the hearing, the following testimony was presented.
{¶6} In April of 2004, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Timothy Ehrenborg was engaged in routine traffic patrol in Logan County, Ohio. While Trooper Ehrenborg was traveling northbound on State Route 235, he observed Phillips' southbound vehicle travel "across the right [white] edge line out of the marked lanes * * *." (Suppression Hearing Tr. p. 5) Trooper Ehrenborg described the section of roadway where he observed Phillips' southbound vehicle as follows:
(Suppression Hearing Tr. p. 6).
{¶7} Trooper Ehrenborg continued that after his initial observation of Phillips' southbound vehicle, he "slowed, turned around and immediately caught up with [Phillips'] vehicle." (Suppression Hearing Tr. p. 7). Trooper Ehrenborg also testified, (Suppression Hearing Tr. p. 7). Trooper Ehrenborg continued that he observed Phillips' vehicle "just prior to turning [left] [go] across the right [white] edge line again." (Suppression Hearing Tr. p. 8). Additionally, Trooper Ehrenborg testified that when Phillips' vehicle passed him going southbound, it appeared that the Phillips' vehicle's rear license plate was not illuminated.
{¶8} In addition to testimonial evidence, Trooper Ehrenborg's patrol car's videotape was introduced. The camera began recording a few seconds prior to Phillips' left turn and captured Phillips' performance of the field sobriety tests.
{¶9} During cross-examination, Trooper Ehrenborg was questioned about Phillips' driving and testified as follows:
Q: I take it from your testimony that other than driving over that [right] white [edge] line when you saw him first and then
again twice over the [right] white [edge] line just before he turned left that there was no other improper driving.
(Suppression Hearing Tr. pp. 32-33).
{¶10} While Trooper Ehrenborg did not provide specific testimony on the approximate distance Phillips' vehicle traveled outside the right white edge line, he did provide the following testimony during recross-examination after the videotape evidence of the traffic stop was introduced:
(Suppression Hearing Tr. pp. 50-51).
{¶11} Further, on cross-examination, Trooper Ehrenborg testified that he stopped Phillips' vehicle approximately three-quarters of a mile from where he initially observed Phillips' vehicle travel across the right white edge line. Trooper Ehrenborg also testified that he charged Phillips with failure to obey a traffic control device, but did not cite him for failing to have his rear license plate illuminated.
{¶12} After the suppression hearing, the trial court found that the alleged lanes violations were not apparent from the videotape. Also, the trial court found that no other erratic driving was visible from the videotape. Additionally, the trial court, in granting Phillips' motion to suppress, noted:
the facts presented are controlled by the line of appellate cases ruling that de minimus lane violations do not establish reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop in the absence of other evidence suggesting impairment. See State v. Gullett (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 138.
{¶13} It is from this decision that the State appeals, presenting the following assignment of error for our review:
The trial court erred when it granted Appellee's motion to suppress where the totality of the circumstances at the scene gave the law enforcement officer reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.
{¶14} In its assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court erred in determining that Trooper Ehrenborg lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Phillips'
vehicle. Specifically, the State contends that Trooper Ehrenborg's observation of Phillips' vehicle crossing the right white edge line three times in a distance of approximately one mile was sufficient to allow him to initiate a traffic stop. Further, the State asserts that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop of Phillips' vehicle created a reasonable suspicion that Phillips was driving while impaired. We disagree.
{¶15} When ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court serves as the trier of fact and is the primary judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence presented. State v. Johnson (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 847, 850. An appellate court must uphold the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 314, 1995-Ohio-243. However, an appellate court must also conduct a de novo review of the trial court's application of the law to the facts. State v. Hodge, 147 Ohio App.3d 550, 2002-Ohio-3053, at ¶9.
{¶16} The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Neither the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution nor Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution explicitly provides that violations of
its provisions against unlawful searches and seizures will result in the suppression of evidence obtained as a result of such violation, but the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusion of evidence is an essential part of the Fourth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, 649; Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383, 394. The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to remove the incentive to violate the Fourth Amendment and thereby deter police from unlawful conduct. State v. Jones, 88 Ohio St.3d 430, 435, 2000-Ohio-374.
{¶17} The temporary detention of a person during a traffic stop is a seizure. State v. Downs, 6th Dist. No. WD-03-030, 2004-Ohio-3003, at ¶10, citing State v. Vass, 7th Dist. No. 01CA 4, 2002-Ohio-6887, at ¶12, citing Delaware v....
To continue reading
Request your trial