Ohio DUI Law; State v. Craze (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion)

State v. Craze, 2010-Ohio-812, 09 COA 017 (OHCA5)

This case is from the Ashland Municipal Court and raises the issue of what constitutes reasonable and articulable suspicion for a traffic stop.  On March 1, 2009, at approximately 2:06 a.m., Trooper Penny Beaty of the Ohio State Highway Patrol was performing traffic duty on Claremont Street in Ashland, Ohio when Appellant’s vehicle passed her traveling on the same road. Trooper Beaty followed Appellant’s vehicle onto West Main Street. While following the vehicle Trooper Beaty observed the vehicle’s registration sticker on the rear license plate was blocked from view. Trooper Beaty then initiated a  of the vehicle as she could not read the sticker from a one-car length distance. Prior to the , Trooper Beaty ran the vehicle’s license plate, and found the registration was valid. Trooper Beaty approached the vehicle with a flashlight, and was able to read the expiration date on the sticker only while standing near the trunk and shining her flashlight behind the frame around the license plate, which obstructed the view of the sticker.

As a result of the , Appellant was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and with failing to display a registration sticker, in violation of R.C. 4503.21. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court overruled the motion. Appellant subsequently entered a plea of no contest to the charge of OVI, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d). The State moved the trial court to nolle prosequi the charges of OVI, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and failure to display registration sticker, in violation of R.C 4503.21.

Here, the Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld the stop, reasoning:  “As set forth above, Ohio Revised Code 4301.21 requires that a motorist display in plain view the distinctive number and registration mark including any county identification sticker and any validation sticker. Trooper Beaty testified she could not read the registration sticker while traveling one-car distance behind, and only could read the sticker while standing at the vehicle’s trunk with a flashlight behind the frame. She further testified Defendant’s Exhibits A and B were not a fair and accurate representation of the view that she had of the license plate and that the license plate bracket attached to this license plate obscured the validation sticker from her vantage point. Based upon the above, the  at issue was valid and the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress.“