Login | April 25, 2024
Portage County OVI motion to suppress improperly reversed
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: July 17, 2019
A Portage County trial court erred in granting a drunken driving defendant’s motion to suppress based on a claimed “impossibility” defense to the underlying charge - rather than whether the stop was reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes, according to the 11th District Court of Appeals.
Kenneth L. Batcho, 20, was stopped by an Ohio Highway Patrol trooper near Kent State University in Kent around 4 a.m. on Jan. 21, 2018.
Case summary indicates Trooper Chester Engle saw Batcho make an allegedly improper turn at an intersection, then observed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage and that Batcho had glassy and bloodshot eyes.
Batcho was charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration of 0.110 percent (a first-degree misdemeanor) and making an improper turn at an intersection.
After pleading not guilty, Batcho filed a motion to suppress evidence regarding the field sobriety tests, chemical tests, observations and opinions of law enforcement and statements taken from or made by him. He claimed there was no probable cause to arrest him without a warrant, that the trooper failed to properly administer the field sobriety tests and that the statements obtained violated his rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. He also claimed the tests were taken without a warrant or consent in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures and that the blood alcohol level test was not conducted in accordance with Ohio Department of Health regulations.
In a supplemental brief, Batcho argued Engle mistakenly relied upon R.C. 4511.36(A)(1), which states that a right turn shall be made as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, to justify the traffic stop.
Batcho alleged it was not practical for him to enter the curb lane, and then within a short distance, move over two lanes to make his left turn.
During a July 24, 2018, suppression hearing, the trooper testified it was not impractical to go into the right lane, then the left lane, then the left turn lane, as required by law, since the dashcam video showed there were no other vehicles around at that time in the morning.
A Portage County Municipal Court judge overruled the motion to suppress. Batcho filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that it was “legally impossible” for him to make the two lane changes within 184 feet and still comply with R.C. 4511.39(A), which requires a turn signal not less than the last 100 feet traveled before turning.
It is undisputed that the Google Map distance between University Drive and Lincoln Street on State Route 59 is 184 feet. In its response to the motion for reconsideration, the state argued Batcho’s legal remedy to the denial of his motion to suppress was an appeal, not a motion for reconsideration.
On Dec. 13, 2018, the trial court found that “justice requires” Batcho to procced on his motion for reconsideration because the court was “troubled” when it issued its initial decision relating to the grounds for the traffic stop. Namely, that it had failed to consider the conflict between the “turning at intersections” statute and the “turn signal” statute as it related to signaling when changing lanes.
The trial court concluded the trooper did not have grounds to stop Batcho.
However, the appellate court ruled the trial court got the legal standard wrong both times.
“Rather than limiting its suppression inquiry to whether the trooper had probable cause to effectuate the traffic stop, it more broadly considered whether the defendant had a defense to the observed traffic violation,” 11th District Judge Timothy P. Cannon wrote in his majority opinion.
“… Here, Trooper Engle observed Batcho pull into the left inside lane of State Route 59, rather than the right curb lane, when he turned right from University Drive. Batcho does not dispute this observation. Therefore, Trooper Engle had probable cause to believe Batcho had violated R.C. 4511.36(A)(1).Trooper Engle was not required to consider whether Batcho had a possible defense to the statute before stopping his car. The trial court erred in determining Trooper Engle ‘did not have grounds’ for the stop. Batcho’s motion should not have been granted on that basis.”
Appellate judges Cynthia Westcott Rice and Mary Jane Trapp concurred the trial court’s judgment should be reversed.
The case is cited State v. Batcho, 2019-Ohio-2511.