State v. Brown

[Cite as State v. Brown, 2018-Ohio-1476.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 17AP-351

(M.C. No. 2016 TRC 158605)

v. :

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

Amber N. Brown, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on April 17, 2018

On brief: Richard C. Pfeiffer, Jr., City Attorney, Lara N.

Baker, and Melanie R. Tobias, for appellee. Argued:

Melanie R. Tobias.

On brief: Yeura R. Venters, Public Defender, and George M.

Schumann, for appellant. Argued: George M. Schumann.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Municipal Court

LUPER SCHUSTER, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Amber N. Brown, appeals from a judgment entry of the

Franklin County Municipal Court finding her guilty, pursuant to no contest plea, of two

counts of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ("OVI") and one count of

impermissibly parking on a highway. For the following reasons, we reverse.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On July 14, 2016, plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, issued a citation and

summons to Brown for one count of OVI, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a); one count of

OVI test refusal with prior conviction, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2); and one count of

impermissibly parking on highways, in violation of R.C. 4511.66. Brown initially entered a

plea of not guilty.

No. 17AP-351 2

{¶ 3} On September 20, 2016, Brown filed a motion to suppress the evidence

obtained from the warrantless seizure of Brown. In her motion, Brown argued the state

trooper lacked a reasonable suspicion to stop and detain her or to expand the scope of her

detention. Brown additionally argued the state trooper did not have probable cause to

arrest her. The state filed a memorandum contra Brown's motion to suppress, and the trial

court set the matter for a hearing.

{¶ 4} At a suppression hearing on December 15, 2016, defense counsel stipulated

that the trooper had "reasonable suspicion for the stop," or "reasonable suspicion to

approach in the first place." (Tr. at 5.) Defense counsel stated it was going to limit the scope

of the hearing to "the question of probable cause." (Tr. at 5.) After some discussion, defense

counsel stated it would concede the issue of impairment for purposes of the hearing and

that the sole question for the hearing was whether the law enforcement officer had probable

cause to believe Brown was operating the vehicle.

{¶ 5} Michael Waters, who was employed as a state trooper with the Ohio State

Highway Patrol at the time of Brown's arrest, testified that during the early morning hours

of July 14, 2016, he was concluding an unrelated traffic stop when a car passed him

traveling the opposite direction. The state played the dash cam video from Trooper Waters'

car and asked him to describe what was happening.

{¶ 6} The video shows a vehicle's headlights pass by Trooper Waters' patrol car

heading westbound at 2:54 a.m. When he first noticed the car, Trooper Waters said there

was nothing about it that initially drew his attention. Trooper Waters testified he turned

around to head back to his post and stopped at a red light at the intersection of Livingston

Avenue and Longsdale Road alongside the vehicle that had just passed him. The other

vehicle was in the right lane, and when Trooper Waters looked over to it, he noticed there

was no one in the driver's seat. The vehicle's engine was running, and Trooper Waters saw

a person in the front passenger seat and three people in the back seat. Only five seconds

elapsed from the time the vehicle's brake lights went off at the traffic light to the time

Trooper Waters pulled up alongside the vehicle.

{¶ 7} When the traffic light turned green, the other vehicle did not move. Trooper

Waters activated his overhead lights and backed his vehicle up to get directly behind the

other vehicle. As he was backing up, Trooper Waters saw the right-side rear passenger door

No. 17AP-351 3

open and Brown emerged from the car. Trooper Waters watched Brown walk around the

front of the car toward the driver's side where she "motioned her left hand towards the

driver's door" but she did not touch the driver's door handle. (Tr. at 19.) At that point,

Trooper Waters made contact with Brown and she began speaking with him. Trooper

Waters testified he never saw Brown in the driver's seat.

{¶ 8} When he approached Brown, Trooper Waters told her to step back from the

car, and he permitted her to stand outside. Trooper Waters testified that Brown appeared

intoxicated and that she was very emotional. Upon asking Brown if she had been driving,

Brown "became upset and started crying, then she said she did not drive." (Tr. at 15.)

Trooper Waters approached the vehicle and asked the other occupants who had been

driving, but each one denied any of them had been driving. Trooper Waters said the other

occupants did not appear to be upset, and he said it is his experience that drivers in OVI

cases are typically more upset than passengers.

{¶ 9} Of the occupants remaining in the rear seat of the vehicle, Trooper Waters

said one person was seated directly behind the driver's seat and one person was seated

directly behind the front passenger seat, but no one was seated in the rear middle seat. The

other occupants told Trooper Waters they had been in their same seats the whole time.

None of the other occupants said Brown was the driver.

{¶ 10} Brown was not the owner of the car; it belonged to one of the other occupants

of the vehicle. Trooper Waters testified he did not believe the vehicle's owner was the driver

because "she never admitted that she was driving." (Tr. at 39.) Trooper Waters said he

asked Brown several times whether she had been driving but she denied she had been

driving each time. Trooper Waters also asked Brown if she had been in the driver's seat

and she responded that she "did not jump out of the driver's seat." (Tr. at 30.) Additionally,

Brown asked Trooper Waters several times whether she could take a portable breath test to

"see if [she was] okay to drive." (Tr. at 30.)

{¶ 11} Following their exchange outside the car, Trooper Waters brought Brown to

his patrol car to identify her and to see if he could "get some more information of who was

actually driving the car." (Tr. at 20.) Brown told Trooper Waters she and her friends had

been celebrating her birthday. While inside the patrol car, Brown told Trooper Waters she

was "sorry" and said she had "done this before," but he did not know what she meant by

No. 17AP-351 4

that statement. (Tr. at 22.) After Trooper Waters identified Brown and ran her

information, he learned she had a prior OVI conviction.

{¶ 12} Trooper Waters then had Brown perform field sobriety tests, and he testified

she "performed poorly." (Tr. at 20.) Upon her completion of the field sobriety tests,

Trooper Waters arrested Brown for OVI. After Trooper Waters informed Brown she was

under arrest for OVI, Brown again stated she was not the driver. Trooper Waters testified

he did not believe Brown's denials based on the locations of the other occupants of the

vehicle and the fact that Brown was "the first person to get out of the vehicle." (Tr. at 34.)

Following her arrest, Brown refused the breath test at the patrol post.

{¶ 13} During closing argument, the state argued "this hearing is about whether or

not [Trooper Waters] had probable cause to believe that [Brown] was operating the

vehicle." (Tr. at 40.) Defense counsel argued Trooper Waters had insufficient information

to establish probable cause to believe that Brown had been driving. At the conclusion of

the hearing, the trial court stated:

But what we're doing here at this motion hearing is talking

about reasonable suspicion, reasonable suspicion to stop. It's

there because you got a driverless car sitting on the road.

Reasonable suspicion to detain Ms. Brown, I think that's there,

too, because she gets out of the car and goes around, looks like

she's making her way to the driver's seat, actually, asking for

permission to drive, more or less, by wanting to submit to a

test.

So I think that the reasonable suspicion is there. The ultimate

question of whether she was driving or not, which is basically

what this case turns on, honestly, I think it's a question for the

jury because it's not based on reasonable suspicion. It's based

on beyond a reasonable doubt. So the reasonable suspicion is

there. Whether you can show beyond a reasonable doubt, I

don't know. That's not my job at this hearing. So there's no

specific request in this motion for the driving issue to be

determined, just asking me to determine reasonable suspicion.

And I'm going to say it's there.

(Tr. at 45-46.) Based on those reasons, the trial court then overruled Brown's motion to

suppress. The trial court journalized its decision in a December 15, 2016 entry.

No. 17AP-351 5

{¶ 14} Following the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress, on April 17, 2017,

Brown entered a no contest plea to all the charges. At the plea hearing, Brown stated she

was entering a no contest plea so that she could appeal the trial court's ruling on her motion

to suppress. The trial court accepted Brown's no contest plea and sentenced her to 180 days

in jail with 160 days suspended for two years of community control as well as a $525 fine.

The trial court journalized Brown's convictions and sentence in an April 18, 2017 judgment

entry. Brown timely appeals.

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 15} Brown assigns the following errors for our review:

[1.] The trial court erred by failing to apply the probable cause

standard for a warrantless arrest when it denied the defendant-

appellant's motion to suppress unconstitutionally obtained

evidence from her warrantless arrest.

[2.] The trial court erred in denying the defendant-appellant's

motion to suppress unconstitutionally obtained evidence

because there was insufficient evidence to establish that the

officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant-

appellant had operated a vehicle while under the influence of

alcohol.

[3.] The trial court's failure to find that the officer lacked a

reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant-appellant to

conduct field sobriety tests was plain error.

III. First Assignment of Error – Motion to Suppress

{¶ 16} In her first assignment of error, Brown argues the trial court erred when it

denied her motion to suppress. More specifically, Brown argues the trial court applied the

incorrect legal standard when considering the propriety of her arrest.

{¶ 17} " 'Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law

and fact. When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier

of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate the

credibility of witnesses. Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial court's

findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Accepting these facts

as true, the appellate court must then independently determine, without deference to the

conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.' "

No. 17AP-351 6

(Citations omitted.) State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71, 2006-Ohio-3665, ¶ 100, quoting

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8.

{¶ 18} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the

states through the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Article I, Section 14, of the Ohio

Constitution, prohibits the government from conducting warrantless searches and seizures,

rendering them per se unreasonable unless an exception applies. State v. Mendoza, 10th

Dist. No. 08AP-645, 2009-Ohio-1182, ¶ 11, citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357

(1967), superseded by statute on other grounds. There is no dispute here that Trooper

Waters arrested Brown without a warrant. The issue here is whether Brown's arrest falls

within any of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement.

{¶ 19} In denying Brown's motion to suppress, the trial court stated there was both

reasonable suspicion to stop and reasonable suspicion to detain Brown. One of the

recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement is an investigatory detention, commonly

referred to as the Terry stop. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a police officer may

stop or detain an individual without probable cause when the officer has reasonable

suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot. Mendoza at

¶ 11, citing Terry at 21. Accordingly, "[a]n investigative stop does not violate the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution if the police have reasonable suspicion that

'the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.' " State v. Jordan, 104

Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-6085, ¶ 35, superseded by statute on other grounds, quoting

United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981).

{¶ 20} Reasonable suspicion entails some minimal level of objective justification,

"that is, something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but

less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause." State v. Jones, 70 Ohio App.3d

554, 556-57 (2d Dist.1990), citing Terry at 27. Accordingly, "[a] police officer may not rely

on good faith and inarticulate hunches to meet the Terry standard of reasonable suspicion."

Jones at 557. An appellate court views the propriety of a police officer's investigative stop

or detention in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances. State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio

St.3d 177 (1988), paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 21} Brown concedes Trooper Waters had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop

and her initial detention in order to determine who had been driving. Indeed, Brown

No. 17AP-351 7

conceded as much at the trial court and instead limited the scope of the suppression hearing

to whether Trooper Waters had probable cause to arrest Brown.

{¶ 22} "A warrantless arrest that is based upon probable cause and occurs in a public

place does not violate the Fourth Amendment." State v. Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55, 2007-

Ohio-4837, ¶ 66, citing United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). "In determining

whether a police officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect for OVI, a court considers

whether, at the moment of arrest, the officer had information within the officer's

knowledge, or derived from a reasonably trustworthy source, of facts and circumstances

sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe the suspect was driving under the influence

of alcohol, drugs, or both." State v. Montelauro, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-413, 2011-Ohio-6568,

¶ 20, citing State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427 (2000), superseded by statute on other

grounds. The trial court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the

arrest in making this determination. Id.

{¶ 23} The stipulated issue at the suppression hearing was whether Trooper Waters

had probable cause to arrest Brown. More specifically, the issue was whether Trooper

Waters had probable cause to believe Brown was the driver of the vehicle. Despite this

stipulation, however, the trial court declined to make any findings related to Brown's

operation of the vehicle, stating instead that was an issue for the jury. The trial court did

not engage in any analysis of probable cause; rather, it denied Brown's motion to suppress

on the basis of reasonable suspicion to stop and reasonable suspicion to detain. Because

the arrest could only be valid if Trooper Waters had probable cause to arrest Brown, the

trial court erred when it analyzed Brown's motion to suppress "under the rubric of

reasonable suspicion rather than that of probable cause." State v. Byrd, 10th Dist. No.

15AP-1091, 2016-Ohio-7670, ¶ 26, citing State v. Muldrow, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-1119, 2016-

Ohio-4774, ¶ 24 (a trial court errs when it applies the incorrect legal standard in its ruling

on a motion to suppress).

{¶ 24} Though the state concedes it was error for the trial court to deny the motion

based on reasonable suspicion to stop and detain, the state argues this court should

nonetheless affirm the denial of a motion to suppress because the record supports a finding

that Trooper Waters had probable cause to arrest. However, the trial court only rendered

factual findings related to its reasonable suspicion analysis, specifically declining to make

No. 17AP-351 8

any findings regarding Brown's operation of the vehicle. As the United States Supreme

Court has explained, "[r]easonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable

cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information

that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but

also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable

than that required to show probable cause." Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990).

The appropriate remedy in a case where the trial court applies the wrong legal standard in

analyzing a motion to suppress is to remand the matter to the trial court to make the

appropriate factual findings relevant to a probable cause analysis for Brown's arrest and

then determine, in the first instance, whether the law enforcement officer had probable

cause to make the arrest. Byrd at ¶ 27, citing Muldrow at ¶ 26 (where trial court applies

wrong legal standard in a motion to suppress, the appropriate remedy is to remand for the

trial court to apply the correct legal standard with appropriate factual findings).

{¶ 25} Thus, because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in analyzing

Brown's motion to suppress, we sustain Brown's first assignment of error.

IV. Second and Third Assignments of Error – Operation of Vehicle and Field

Sobriety Tests

{¶ 26} In her second assignment of error, Brown argues that, in lieu of remand, this

court should apply the facts from the suppression hearing to a probable cause analysis and

conclude Trooper Waters lacked probable cause to believe Brown was the driver of the

vehicle. In her third and final assignment of error, Brown argues it was error for the trial

court to fail to make a determination about the validity of the field sobriety tests. However,

our resolution of Brown's first assignment of error renders moot her second and third

assignments of error and we need not address them. See Byrd at ¶ 34.

V. Disposition

{¶ 27} Based on the foregoing reasons, the trial court erred when it analyzed

Brown's motion to suppress under the standard of reasonable suspicion rather than

probable cause. Because of the trial court's erroneous application of the legal standard, the

trial court did not make the appropriate factual findings necessary to apply the probable

cause analysis. Having sustained Brown's first assignment of error and Brown's second and

third assignments of error being moot, we reverse the judgment of the Franklin County

No. 17AP-351 9

Municipal Court and remand this matter to that court with instructions for the court to

consider the evidence at the suppression hearing and make, in the first instance, the

appropriate legal determinations consistent with this decision.

Judgment reversed;

cause remanded with instructions.

DORRIAN and HORTON, JJ., concur.