holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence where the officer observed erratic driving, that defendant's eyes were red and glassy, her breath smelled of alcohol, and she admitted to consuming three beers
How later courts described this case
- holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence where the officer observed erratic driving, that defendant's eyes were red and glassy, her breath smelled of alcohol, and she admitted to consuming three beers
- finding that erratic driving, red, glassy eyes, the smell of alcohol on one's breath, and an admission that one had consumed some alcohol were facts sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence
- holding that an officer’s observation of a defendant’s erratic driving, bloodshot and glassy eyes, that she smelled of alcohol, and her admission that she had been drinking “amply supports * * * [a] decision to place [her] under arrest[ ]”
- stating that "probable cause to arrest does not necessarily have to be based, in whole or in part, upon a suspect's poor performance on one or more of" the field sobriety tests
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in State v. Boczar
732 N.E.2d 952 (2000) superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148
Superseded on other grounds by State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St. 3d 79 (2004)
89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427 , superseded on other grounds, State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79
Disagreed with by State v. Marcinko, Unpublished Decision (3-2-2007), 2007 Ohio 1166 (2007)
Id. For these same reasons, we disagree with appellant that the officer's failure to conduct the tests on a level surface or the allegedly strong winds requires the conclusion that the tests did not substantially comply with NHTSA.
The opinion
Rocco, J.,
concurring. I agree with the majority that field sobriety test results can provide probable cause to arrest only if the administering officer strictly complies with the standardized testing procedures. I write separately to emphasize an additional point.
I would extend the court’s holding here to explicitly state that field sobriety test results are admissible at trial only if the officer strictly complied with standardized testing procedures. The majority has demonstrated that the care with which a field sobriety test is administered has a decisive effect on the test’s reliability, and hence its evidentiary value. It seems self-evident to me that if strict compliance with testing procedures is necessary to demonstrate probable cause to arrest, it becomes even more necessary if the tests are to be used to prove guilt.