Westlake v. Goodman ( 2022 )

[Cite as Westlake v. Goodman, 2022-Ohio-3045.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
CITY OF WESTLAKE, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 111300
v. :
PARKER GOODMAN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 1, 2022
Criminal Appeal from the Rocky River Municipal Court
Case No. 21-TRC-1552
Appearances:
Michael P. Maloney, City of Westlake Director of Law, and
John F. Corrigan, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
Milano Attorneys & Counselors at Law, Jay Milano, and
Kate Pruchnicki, for appellant.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
Defendant-appellant, Parker Goodman, appeals the trial court’s
decision denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I. Procedural History and Background
In May 2021, Goodman was charged with (1) operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a first-degree misdemeanor violation of
R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a); (2) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol, a first-degree misdemeanor violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d); and (3)
operating a vehicle without reasonable control, a minor misdemeanor violation of
R.C. 4511.202(A).
The charges stemmed from a single-car accident where Goodman
admitted to speeding down Hilliard Boulevard, missing the turn onto Lincoln Road,
losing control of his vehicle, and crashing into a large pile of rocks on private
property. As a result of the accident, the back end of Goodman’s vehicle was
suspended on the rock pile, rendering his vehicle immobile. Police responded and,
following a field sobriety test, Goodman was arrested for operating a motor vehicle
while impaired (“OVI”). A subsequent breath test yielded a blood alcohol content
(“BAC”) of .167. Goodman filed a motion to suppress, contending that (1) the
officer’s decision to administer the field sobriety tests was not independently
justified by reasonable suspicion that he was operating a vehicle while impaired; and
(2) the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for OVI.
A magistrate conducted the suppression hearing at which the city
presented testimony and evidence from one witness, Officer Thomas Podulka
(“Officer Podulka”) of the Westlake Police Department.
Officer Podulka testified that in the early morning hours of Saturday,
May 21, 2021, he was dispatched to the intersection of Hilliard Boulevard and
Lincoln Road around 2:10 a.m. on a report of a possible motor vehicle accident. He
said that the caller reported hearing a “loud boom.” Officer Podulka testified that
upon his arrival, he observed the driver, later identified as Goodman, exiting the
driver’s side of the vehicle, which had its hazard lights on after having collided with
a large pile of rocks. He stated that the vehicle’s back end was suspended on top of
the rocks and the hood was propped open. Officer Podulka testified that it was not
uncommon for there to be accidents at this location late at night because the
roadway has “a hard angle, a sharp curve.” He testified that this was the first
accident at this specific intersection with which he had been involved that was the
result of alcohol-impaired driving.
Officer Podulka’s interaction with Goodman was captured by the
officer’s dash camera, and the video was played for the court. The officer stated that
during his initial interaction, Goodman denied needing medical attention or that he
was drinking but admitted that he was speeding and lost control of his vehicle.
Goodman told the officer that the accident just happened “about 2 minutes before”
police arrived and that he was heading back to his residence about a mile away. He
stated that he was just out “cruising around.” Officer Podulka testified that during
his initial engagement with Goodman he did not detect any odor of alcohol due to
the smell caused by the deployed airbag inside of the vehicle.
Officer Podulka told the court that he made the decision to administer
standardized field sobriety tests after speaking with Goodman and observing his
glassy, bloodshot eyes, and noticing that Goodman was stumbling over his words.
Officer Podulka confirmed that he did not detect any odor of alcohol prior to his
decision to conduct the field sobriety tests, but said that based on his knowledge,
training, and experience, he believed that Goodman was impaired. Officer Podulka
further testified that as Goodman was walking back toward the police cruiser, his
gait was unsteady and that he was stepping very deliberately — “trying to be sure of
every step.”
Officer Podulka testified that he administered the Horizontal Gaze
Nystagmus (“HGN”) test and that Goodman exhibited four of six clues of
impairment during the test. The dash-cam video, which captured the
administration of the test, showed Goodman on two occasions looking away from
Officer Podulka during the test on two occasions, prompting the officer to instruct
Goodman to focus on him. Additionally, Goodman is heard advising the officer
during his performance of the test that his stepbrother is a police officer. Following
the HGN test, Officer Podulka again asked Goodman how much he had to drink that
night; again, Goodman denied drinking.
Officer Podulka testified that he did not administer other
standardized field sobriety tests, i.e., the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand tests,
because Goodman stated that he suffers from postural orthostatic tachycardia
syndrome (POTS), which according to Goodman, causes him to become dizzy and
prevents him from doing those tests. Officer Podulka testified if that were true,
Goodman’s medical condition would have affected his ability to perform the tests.
Accordingly, Officer Podulka requested that Goodman to perform a non-
standardized field sobriety test of reciting the alphabet, which Goodman
successfully performed.
The dash-cam video captured Officer Podulka asking Goodman to
write a statement about what had happened. During this conversation, Goodman
stated that he was speeding — estimating his speed between 50 and 60 m.p.h. —
being a “dumbass,” and missing his turn. Officer Podulka again asked Goodman
how much he had to drink and told Goodman that he felt he was not being honest
with him about not drinking. Goodman reminded the officer that he took the field
sobriety tests, but also advised the officer that he knew Chief Bielozer, the Westlake
Chief of Police.
Officer Podulka testified that he asked Goodman if he would consent
to a portable breath test (“PBT”). The audio from the dash-cam video recorded an
extensive conversation between Officer Podulka, Patrolman Steven Paulick, and
Goodman about what would happen if he performed or did not perform the breath
test. Goodman agreed to take the PBT, but was unsuccessful due to his inability to
blow into the PBT for the requisite amount of time. During his three unsuccessful
attempts, he again advised the officers that he was friends with Chief Bielozer.
Following his unsuccessful attempts to submit to the PBT, Officer Podulka arrested
Goodman for OVI.
At the conclusion of hearing, the magistrate denied the motion to
suppress, finding that the video, combined with Officer Podulka’s testimony,
demonstrated that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the administration
of field sobriety tests. The magistrate further found that during the HGN test
Goodman exhibited four out of the six indicators for impairment. Accordingly, the
magistrate concluded that Officer Podulka had probable cause to arrest Goodman
for OVI. The magistrate subsequently issued a written decision.
Goodman filed timely objections, contending that the magistrate’s
finding that the officer smelled alcohol after Goodman walked away from his vehicle
was inconsistent with the officer’s testimony and that the magistrate’s decision
lacked any conclusion of law related to the officer having reasonable suspicion to
warrant the administration of field sobriety testing.
On October 19, 2021, the trial court overruled Goodman’s objections
and upheld the magistrate’s decision denying the motion to suppress.
In February 2022, Goodman pleaded no contest to all charges. The
trial court imposed a fine and sentenced Goodman to serve 180 days in jail, with 180
days suspended. He was placed on six-months of basic community control
supervision with conditions, and given a one-year driver’s license suspension.
Goodman now appeals, raising two assignments of error, each
challenging the trial court’s decision denying his motion suppress.
II. The Appeal
“Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question
of law and fact.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d
71, ¶ 8. With regard to factual determinations, “[a]n appellate court must accept the
trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.”
State v. Hawkins, 158 Ohio St.3d 94, 2019-Ohio-4210, 140 N.E.3d 577, ¶ 16, citing
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). “But the appellate
court must decide the legal questions independently, without deference to the trial
court’s decision.” Id., citing Burnside at ¶ 8.
A. Reasonable Suspicion
In his first assignment of error, Goodman contends that the trial court
erred in determining that Officer Podulka had reasonable suspicion to expand the
traffic crash investigation into an OVI investigation by deciding to administer
standardized field sobriety tests.
Reasonable suspicion requires that the officer “point to specific and
articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,
reasonably warrant the intrusion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20
L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). An officer may not ask a motorist to perform field sobriety tests
unless the request is separately justified by a reasonable suspicion based upon
articulable facts that the motorist is intoxicated. Cleveland v. Kalish, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 105557, 2018-Ohio-682, ¶ 19, citing Parma Hts. v. Dedejczyk, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97664, 2012-Ohio-3458, ¶ 29, citing State v. Evans, 127 Ohio
App.3d 56, 62, 711 N.E.2d 761 (11th Dist.1998). “‘A court analyzes the
reasonableness of the request based on the totality of the circumstances, viewed
through the eyes of a reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must
react to events as they unfold.’” Id., quoting Dedejczyk at id., citing State v. Dye,
11th Dist. Geauga No. 2001-P-0140, 2002-Ohio-7158.
In this assignment of error, Goodman focuses on the fact that Officer
Podulka made the decision to conduct field sobriety tests only after a brief encounter
with him and without smelling any odor of alcohol. Our review of the relevant case
law does not reveal any minimum timeframe within which an officer must interact
with a motorist to garner reasonable suspicion that the motorist may be intoxicated.
Rather, various factors are considered by courts when determining
whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests:
(1) the time of day of the stop (Friday or Saturday night as opposed to,
e.g., Tuesday morning); (2) the location of the stop (whether near
establishments selling alcohol); (3) any indicia of erratic driving before
the stop that may indicate a lack of coordination (speeding, weaving,
unusual braking, etc.); (4) whether there is a cognizable report that the
driver may be intoxicated; (5) the condition of the suspect’s eyes
(bloodshot, glassy, glazed, etc.); (6) impairments of the suspect’s ability
to speak (slurred speech, overly deliberate speech, etc.); (7) the odor of
alcohol coming from the interior of the car, or, more significantly, on
the suspect’s person or breath; (8) the intensity of that odor, as
described by the officer (“very strong,[”] “strong,” “moderate,” “slight,”
etc.); (9) the suspect’s demeanor (belligerent, uncooperative, etc.); (10)
any actions by the suspect after the stop that might indicate a lack of
coordination (dropping keys, falling over, fumbling for a wallet, etc.);
and (11) the suspect’s admission of alcohol consumption, the number
of drinks had, and the amount of time in which they were consumed, if
given. All of these factors, together with the officer’s previous
experience in dealing with drunken drivers, may be taken into account
by a reviewing court in determining whether the officer acted
reasonably.
Dedejczyk at ¶ 30, quoting Evans at 63, fn. 2.
This court has explained that these factors are merely assistive guides
in the determination of reasonable suspicion because no one factor is dispositive
and the list does not represent an exhaustive account of factors that can or should
be considered. Dedejczyk at ¶ 31, citing State v. Boczar, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No.
2004-A-0063, 2005-Ohio-6910, ¶ 14. Generally, courts approve a request to submit
to field sobriety testing only where the officer based his or her decision on a number
of these factors. Evans at 63.
In this case, various Evans factors exist that would support Officer
Podulka’s decision to administer field sobriety tests. The evidence and testimony
revealed that Goodman crashed his vehicle during the early morning hours on a
Saturday; the accident occurred in an area known to Goodman ─ he only lived about
a mile away; Goodman admitted to speeding and losing control of his vehicle; and
Officer Podulka observed that Goodman’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that
Goodman was stumbling over his words during the initial interaction. Officer
Podulka testified that based on his experience, training, and knowledge from over
400 OVI arrests, Goodman exhibited indicia of impairment warranting the
administration of field sobriety tests. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that
Officer Podulka’s decision to perform standardized field sobriety tests prior to
actually smelling any alcohol emanating from Goodman was reasonable based on
the totality of the circumstances.
Goodman’s first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Probable Cause to Arrest
Probable cause does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. “In
determining whether the police had probable cause to arrest appellant for OVI, we
must determine whether, at the moment of arrest, the police had information
sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was driving under
the influence.” Dedejczyk, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97664, 2012-Ohio-3458, ¶ 57,
citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); see also
State v. Doss, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109235, 2020-Ohio-5510, ¶ 14; Cleveland v.
Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107257, 2019-Ohio-1525, ¶ 26; Middleburg Hts. v.
Gettings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99556, 2013-Ohio-3536. “A probable cause
determination is based on the ‘totality’ of facts and circumstances within a police
officer’s knowledge.” Id., quoting State v. Miller, 117 Ohio App.3d 750, 761, 691
N.E.2d 703 (11th Dist.1997).
In his second assignment of error, Goodman contends that the trial
court erred in determining that Officer Podulka had probable cause to arrest him for
OVI. Goodman relies on his prior arguments that the results of the field sobriety
test should be excluded because no reasonable suspicion existed to warrant
conducting the tests. He contends that if the results are excluded, then the officers
lacked probable cause to arrest him for OVI. In support of his argument, Goodman
cites to this court’s decisions in S. Euclid v. Bautista-Avila, 2015-Ohio-3236, 36
N.E.3d 246 (8th Dist.), and Cleveland v. Krivich, 2016-Ohio-3072, 65 N.E.3d 279(8th Dist.). We find both distinguishable.
In Bautista-Avila, this court upheld the trial court’s decision
suppressing the evidence obtained during a routine sobriety checkpoint. Even
though the officer smelled a moderate odor of alcohol, observed empty beer bottles
inside the car, and Bautista-Avila admitted to drinking, this court agreed with the
trial court that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest Bautista-Avila for OVI.
This court agreed with the trial court that the officer’s testimony was entirely
inconsistent with the video that captured Bautista-Avila’s field sobriety tests.
Rather, the testimony and evidence established that the officer failed to conduct the
field sobriety tests in substantial compliance with the guidelines set forth by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). Moreover, the video
showed that Bautista-Avila did not display any signs that he was impaired by
alcohol, i.e., no slurring of words or displaying movements that would indicate a lack
of coordination, and he was not observed driving erratically. Accordingly, without
any reliable indicia of impairment, the totality of the circumstances revealed that the
officer lacked probable cause.
Similarly, in Krivich, this court upheld the trial court’s decision
granting Krivich’s motion to suppress after the arresting officer affirmatively
acknowledged during the hearing that he had deviated from NHTSA standards
while administering field sobriety tests. This court agreed with the trial court that
even though the traffic stop was lawful due to the traffic infraction, the officer lacked
probable cause to arrest because the field tests were not conducted in substantial
compliance with NHTSA guidelines and no other indicia of impairment was present.
In this case, unlike in Bautista-Avila and Krivich, Goodman has not
challenged whether Officer Podulka’s administration of the standardized field
sobriety tests substantially complied with the applicable NHTSA standards and
guidelines. Accordingly, because we concluded based on the totality of the
circumstances that reasonable suspicion existed to administer the field sobriety
tests, and Goodman has not challenged the results of the HGN test, we find that the
results are reliable and thus, are to be considered in determining the existence of
probable cause. See State v. Bresson, 51 Ohio St.3d 123, 129-130, 554 N.E.2d 1330(1990) (the HGN test is a reliable test for determining if a person in under the
influence and can be used to establish probable cause).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Officer Podulka had
probable cause to arrest Goodman for OVI. He first encountered Goodman after a
single-car accident where the back end of his vehicle was stuck on a pile of large
rocks. Goodman admitted to speeding and losing control of his car. During this
initial interaction, Officer Podulka observed that Goodman’s eyes were glassy and
bloodshot and that Goodman was stumbling over his words. Suspecting that he was
impaired, Officer Podulka asked Goodman to walk back to the police cruiser. The
officer testified that at this time, he noticed that Goodman’s gait was unsteady and
that he was walking deliberately. Officer Podulka testified that he conducted the
HGN test and that Goodman exhibited four out of the six indicators of impairment.
The officer testified that during this interaction, he then detected an odor of alcohol
emanating from Goodman. After Goodman was unable to perform any further
standardized filed sobriety tests due to a medical impairment (the ABC test is a non-
standardized test), Officer Podulka offered Goodman the option to submit to a PBT,
a test that Goodman was ultimately unable to perform. Officer Podulka testified that
based on his training and experience with alcohol-impaired drivers, he believed
Goodman operated his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol due to his
observations and Goodman’s performance of the HGN, and then the subsequent
detection of alcohol coming from Goodman. Accordingly, he placed Goodman
under arrest.
We conclude that based on the results of the HGN test, coupled with
the subsequent observation of Goodman’s unsteady gait, detection of an odor of
alcohol, and Goodman’s inability to perform the PBT, Officer Podulka had probable
cause to arrest Goodman for OVI. See Tallmadge v. McCoy, 96 Ohio App.3d 604,
610, 645 N.E.2d 802 (9th Dist.1994) (failure of an HGN test, combined with an odor
of alcohol even without conducting other field sobriety tests, had been found to
constitute probable cause to arrest); State v. Williams, 83 Ohio App.3d 536, 539,
615 N.E.2d 317 (3d Dist.1992) (where driver has glassy, bloodshot eyes, the odor of
an alcoholic beverage on his breath, and is able to perform physical coordination
tests only poorly, probable cause exists for arrest of OVI). Accordingly, the
assignment of error is overruled
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Rocky
River Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
convictions having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case
remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR