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 v. Bracken

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

February 28, 2017

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Cody D. Bracken, Defendant-Appellee.

         APPEAL from the Franklin County Municipal Court M.C. No. 2015TRC193153.

          On brief: Richard C. Pfeiffer, Jr., City Attorney, Lara N. Baker, City Prosecutor, and Melanie R. Tobias, for appellant. Argued: Melanie R. Tobias.

          On brief: Jack Moser Law Co., LP A, and Jack L. Moser, Jr., for appellee. Argued: Jack L. Moser, Jr.

          DECISION

          TYACK, P.J.

         {¶ 1} The State of Ohio is appealing from the granting of a motion to suppress. It assigns a single error for our consideration:

The trial court erred in suppressing the Defendant's breath-alcohol test results because the officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

         {¶ 2} The State amplifies its view with its statement of the issue presented for review:

When an individual is stopped in the early morning hours for speeding, emits a moderate odor of alcohol, displays bloodshot, glassy eyes, admits to consuming alcohol and fails three standardized field sobriety tests does the officer have probable cause to arrest the individual for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol?

         {¶ 3} In the early morning hours of December 6, 2015, Cody D. Bracken was clocked at a speed of 61 m.p.h. in a posted 45 m.p.h. zone and pulled over by Sergeant Jermaine Thaxton ("Sgt. Thaxton") of the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

         {¶ 4} Sgt. Thaxton then approached Bracken's vehicle. Sgt. Thaxton felt that he noticed a moderate odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. He viewed Bracken's eyes as being bloodshot and glassy. Sgt. Thaxton felt Bracken's face was flushed. Sgt. Thaxton acknowledged that he did not shine a light on Bracken's face to enable or increase his ability to make such observations.

         {¶ 5} Bracken acknowledged that he had consumed two beers. Sgt. Thaxton had Bracken perform some field sobriety tests, the first of which was the horizontal gaze nystagmus test ("HGN"). Bracken was viewed as displaying six clues which indicated alcohol consumption. Sgt. Thaxton felt that Bracken had an odor of alcohol on his breath, but no more than a moderate odor. The video of the encounter does not enable us to evaluate how the HGN test was conducted or its results.

         {¶ 6} The next test administered by Sgt. Thaxton was the walk-and-turn test. Sgt. Thaxton later testified that Bracken displayed five of the eight possible clues indicating alcohol consumption to an unacceptable level. Sgt. Thaxton viewed starting the walk-and-turn test before being told to start walking as an indication of being impaired.

         {¶ 7} Another test administered was a test in which Bracken was requested to recite a portion of the alphabet. Bracken allegedly skipped a letter.

         {¶ 8} The final test administered was a one-leg stand test. Sgt. Thaxton later testified that Bracken displayed three of four possible clues indicating an illegal blood alcohol level. The video of the interaction between Sgt. ...


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.