A recent case from the Fourth Appellate District of Ohio is interesting as it succinctly outlines the necessary elements necessary for an arrest for a DUI or OVI. The case, State v. Chevalier, 2010 Ohio 4096, arose from the defendant arrest for OVI.
The defendant was stopped for going 43mph over the seed limit. When speaking with the defendant, the offices immediately suspected that the defendant was driving under the influence. According to the officers, Chevalier spoke “unnaturally” slow, and her demeanor was “strange.” The defendant admitted having one drink. The deputies asked the defendant to exit the vehicle and perform the three standard field sobriety tests – HGN, walk and turn and one-leg stand. According to the officers she failed all three tests. She was placed under arrest and transported to the local to the local sheriffs’s department where she submitted to a breathalyzer test. The test result was .159.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress claiming the deputies lacked probable cause to arrest her. Chevalier did not contest that there was indicia of alcohol consumption. Instead, she argued there was no probable cause for her arrest because in addition to indicia of alcohol consumption there must also be evidence of impaired driving or impaired coordination.
In its opinion the court stated:
“The standard for determining whether the police have probable cause to arrest an individual for DUI is whether, at the moment of arrest, the police had sufficient information, derived from a reasonably trustworthy source, of facts and circumstances sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence.” State v. Brungs, 4th Dist. No. 05CA18, 2005 Ohio 5776, at P25, citing State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427, 732 N.E.2d 952, 2000 Ohio 212. To make this determination, the trial court should consider the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. Brungs at P25. Homan, citing State v. Miller (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 750, 761, 691 N.E.2d 703; State v. Brandenburg (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 109, 534 N.E.2d 906.
“Furthermore, if an arrest is based upon R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), an officer must observe indicia of both alcohol consumption and impaired driving or coordination before there will be probable cause for an arrest.” State v. Coates, 4th Dist. No. 01CA21, 2002 Ohio 2160, at *6.
First, the court pointed to her driving 43 mph over the speed limit. In addition, the court the described the defendant’s failure to take instruction during the field sobriety tests, her lack of coordination, impaired speech, and her inability to complete some tests.
As the court stated, in determining probable cause to arrest the court will look at the “…totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest.” The reader is cautioned that the evidentiary level for probable cause is much less than the level necessary for conviction. The police need only show “sufficient information, derived from a reasonably trustworthy source, of facts and circumstances sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence.”
