Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Gregory A. Nemunaitis

September 30, 2011

STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE
v.
GREGORY A. NEMUNAITIS, JR. APPELLANT



APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE STOW MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 2010 TRC 9913

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Belfance, Presiding Judge.

Cite as State v. Nemunaitis ,

ss:

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶1} Gregory Nemunaitis appeals from his convictions for operating a vehicle under the influence and failure to yield at an intersection. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

{¶2} Sergeant Daniel Rice observed Mr. Nemunaitis stop his car at a stop sign. Mr. Nemunaitis then proceeded to turn right onto a cross street, causing a car travelling along that street to have to swerve to avoid striking Mr. Nemunaitis' car. Sergeant Rice stopped Mr. Nemunaitis and cited him for violating R.C. 4511.41.

{¶3} Mr. Nemunaitis filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered as a result of the traffic stop, arguing that Sergeant Rice lacked probable cause to initiate the stop. The trial court denied the motion, and Mr. Nemunaitis pleaded no contest to the charges. He has appealed, raising one assigned error for review.

II.

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT/APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS."

{¶4} Mr. Nemunaitis confines his arguments to the legality of the initial stop and argues that Sergeant Rice failed to state articulable facts sufficient to justify the traffic stop. We disagree.

{¶5} Generally, 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, at ¶8. Thus, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence and review its application of the law to the facts de novo. State v. Metcalf, 9th Dist. No. 23600, 2007-Ohio- 4001, at ¶6.

{¶6} A traffic stop constitutes a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Swann, 9th Dist. No. 23529, 2007-Ohio-3235, at ¶6.

Accordingly, "[a]n automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be 'unreasonable' under the circumstances." Whren v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 806, 810. Thus, an officer must demonstrate "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts," lead to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the intrusion. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 21. See also, State v. Barbee, 9th Dist. No. 07CA009138, 2008-Ohio-3587, at ΒΆ9, quoting State v. Poole (June 7, 1995), 9th Dist. No. 2336- M, at *3 ("In order to initiate a valid traffic stop, an officer must have a 'reasonable suspicion that a motorist was violating a traffic law.'"). In this case, the basis for the stop was a traffic ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.