State v. Winand
| Decision Date | 04 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-C-80,94-C-80 |
| Citation | 116 Ohio App.3d 286,688 N.E.2d 9 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WINAND, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Herron, Columbiana County Prosecuting Attorney, and John Shivers, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Salem, for appellee.
Edward A. Sowinski, Jr., Youngstown, for appellant.
Defendant-appellant, Tim Winand, appeals from an order of the Northwest Area County Court, Columbiana, Ohio, finding him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1).
Appellant was driving his motor vehicle east on U.S. 62 on May 9, 1994, at approximately 1:15 a.m. Ohio State Patrol Trooper Metz was on duty at that time, driving his vehicle west on U.S. 62, when he saw appellant. Trooper Metz clocked appellant's speed of travel with moving radar at fifty-one miles per hour in a thirty-five mile per hour zone. Trooper Metz turned his vehicle around to catch up with appellant. As Trooper Metz followed appellant, he observed appellant drift over the white center line that divides the two eastbound lanes on U.S. 62. Trooper Metz immediately activated his vehicle lights and stopped appellant. At that time, Trooper Metz detected a "strong odor of an alcoholic beverage" upon appellant's breath. Trooper Metz administered certain field sobriety tests to appellant, which appellant failed. Appellant subsequently was arrested and taken to the Sebring Police Department, where appellant tested .177 percent B.A. on a B.A.C. verifier machine.
After his arrest, appellant filed a motion to suppress the test results on a number of grounds, including the allegation that Trooper Metz did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion upon which he based the traffic stop. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Trooper Metz testified that he initially turned around to follow appellant after clocking appellant at fifty-one miles per hour in a thirty-five mile per hour zone. Trooper Metz also gave the following testimony on cross-examination:
In addition to the foregoing, the B.M.V. form 2255, signed by Trooper Metz, reads as follows:
R.C. 4511.33 provides that a vehicle must, as far as practicable, be driven within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has ascertained that such movement can be safely made.
After the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court found that Trooper Metz observed appellant traveling at a high rate of speed, which was verified by moving radar, and that Trooper Metz observed appellant's vehicle traveling left of center. The trial court subsequently overruled the motion to suppress, concluding:
" * * * Having made those observations, the arresting officer did have a reasonable and articulable basis for making a traffic stop of Defendant [appellant]."
After he was found guilty, appellant filed the instant appeal.
Appellant sets forth one assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in overruling defendant's [appellant's] motion to suppress the BAC results[.]"
Appellant argues that Trooper Metz lacked a reasonable and articulable basis for making the stop. Appellant argues that he was not charged with speeding, and further argues that it is not clear that Trooper Metz would have pulled him over for speeding. Appellant notes that Trooper Metz did not, upon clocking appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mark A. Brown
... ... erred in overruling his motion to suppress his confession ... Our ... standard of review with respect to motions to suppress is ... whether the trial courts findings are supported by competent, ... credible evidence. State v. Winand (1996), 116 Ohio ... App.3d 286, 288, citing Tallmadge v. McCoy (1994), ... 96 Ohio App.3d 604, 608. This is the appropriate standard ... because "'[i]n a hearing on a motion to suppress ... evidence, the trial court assumes the role of trier of facts ... and is in ... ...
-
Chester v. Bobby, CASE NO. 2:10-CV-00402
...is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Winand (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 286, 288, 688 N.E.2d 9. This is a highly deferential standard of review because, in a hearing on a motion to suppressevidence, the trial court ......
-
State v. Hodge
...(1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 314, 652 N.E.2d 988; State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20 , 437 N.E.2d 583; State v. Winand (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 286, 688 N.E.2d 9. However, we must then conduct a de novo review of the trial court's application of the law to the facts. State v. Anderso......
-
State Of Ohio v. Parker
...to motions to suppress is whether the trial court's findings are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Winand (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 286, 288, 688 N.E.2d 9, citing Tallmadge v. McCoy (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 604, 608, 645 N.E.2d 802. This is the appropriate standard because "'[......