DocketNumber: Nos. 12-05-17, 12-05-18.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 608
Judges: BRYANT, P.J.
Filed Date: 2/13/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} On April 20, 2005, Wurth entered the Wannamacher Tavern in Ottoville, Ohio to buy a pack of cigarettes. Enrique Ortega ("Ortega"), a patrolman with the Ottoville Police Department, was eating dinner in the tavern at the time Wurth entered. Ortega suspected Wurth may be intoxicated due to his concentrated efforts to walk and to speak articulately. Ortega left the tavern as Wurth was pulling away from his parking space, and Wurth did not stop when Ortega shouted to him. Ortega then pursued Wurth in his cruiser. Outside the village limits, Ortega observed Wurth swerving within his lane of travel and effectuated a traffic stop approximately two miles from the tavern. Ortega approached the vehicle and immediately asked Wurth if he had been drinking. As he spoke with Wurth, Ortega saw a rifle on the passenger side of the vehicle. Wurth reported that the gun was unloaded and gave it to Ortega. Upon inspection, Ortega noticed the action was open and contained a .22 caliber shell. Ortega did not administer any field sobriety test, and Wurth was arrested for a firearms violation. At the police station, Wurth submitted to a breath-alcohol test, which registered .159 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
{¶ 3} On April 27, 2005, Wurth was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, a violation of R.C.
The assignment of error is that the lower court erred in itsorder which overruled Defendant's motion to dismiss and or [sic]suppress for the reason that the same is contrary to both thefacts of the case and the law of the State of Ohio.
{¶ 4} The appeal of a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact.State v. Dixon,
{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, Wurth argues that Ortega did not comply with the statutory requirements of hot pursuit when he effectuated the traffic stop because he did not observe a violation within his territorial jurisdiction. Wurth also contends that Ortega lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to effectuate the stop. In response, the State of Ohio ("State") contends that Ortega "perceived a misdemeanor violation of driving under the influence occurring within his jurisdiction", began his pursuit within the territorial boundaries of Ottoville Village, and was in hot pursuit at the time of the stop. The State argues there was reasonable suspicion because Ortega observed Wurth walking lethargically, speaking slowly, and driving erratically.
{¶ 6} The
{¶ 7} Absent a violation of a constitutional right, the violation of a statute does not invoke the exclusionary rule.State v. Weideman,
{¶ 8} R.C.
If a * * * municipal police officer, * * * is authorized bydivision (A) or (B) of this section to arrest and detain,within the limits of the political subdivision, a person until awarrant can be obtained, the peace officer, outside the limits ofthat territory, may pursue, arrest, and detain that person untila warrant can be obtained if all of the following apply:
(1) The pursuit takes place without unreasonable delay afterthe offense is committed;
(2) The pursuit is initiated within the limits of thepolitical subdivision, * * * in which the peace officer isappointed, employed, or elected or within the limits of theterritorial jurisdiction of the peace officer;
(3) The offense involved is a felony, a misdemeanor of thefirst degree or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, amisdemeanor of the second degree or a substantially equivalentmunicipal ordinance, or any offense for which points arechargeable pursuant to section
{¶ 9} Although R.C.
{¶ 10} The next question is whether Ortega complied with R.C.
[Ortega] observed the Defendant to be walking slowly andlethargically, his speech was slow and concentrated, havingtrouble enunciating. The Defendant appeared to be eitherintoxicated or under the influence of drugs as per thePatrolman's observation and years of experience and training. When the Defendant walked toward the door and then through thedoor to the outside, the Patrolman got up from the bar and triedto get outside to talk to the Defendant. By the time thePatrolman exited the tavern, the Defendant had entered hisvehicle and driven off. Although the Patrolman yelled at theDefendant to stop, and waved his hands, apparently the Defendantdid not see him and kept on proceeding in a westerly direction onRoute 224 in the Village of Ottoville. The Patrolman then went to his vehicle and attempted to catchup with the Defendant through the Village of Ottoville and thenoutside the Village limits[.]
J. Entry, Jul. 28, 2005, ¶¶ 2, 3-4. We must accept these facts as they are supported by competent, credible evidence in the record. Because Ortega believed Wurth was intoxicated, he followed Wurth outside the tavern and saw him drive a vehicle. Therefore, Ortega witnessed a violation of R.C.
{¶ 11} Wurth also argues that Ortega had no probable cause to effectuate the traffic stop. In its findings of fact, the trial court noted that Ortega observed Wurth "weaving within his lane of travel and crossing the center line on several occasions, then jerking back into Defendant's lane of travel." J. Entry, at ¶ 4. Based on these facts, the officer would have probable cause to effectuate a traffic stop based on a left of center traffic violation. See Whren v. United States (1996),
{¶ 12} Despite the deficiency in the trial court's findings of fact, the totality of the circumstances supports a finding of reasonable suspicion. Ortega had reasonable suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop based solely on his observations at the tavern. However, considering the totality of the circumstances, we must factor into the equation that Wurth was driving 35 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour speed limit zone and driving erratically within his own lane of travel. Id. at 12:4-7; 13:19-23. See also State v. Potter, 3rd Dist. No. 14-89-13, 1990 WL 121489, at * 2 (reasonable suspicion that law was being violated when officer observed defendant's vehicle traveling at a slower speed than the traffic flow and weaving from side to side). Therefore, Ortega had reasonable suspicion to make the stop, and the sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 13} The judgments of the Putnam County Court are affirmed.
Judgments affirmed. Cupp and Rogers, JJ., concur.