FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE STOW MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 2016TRC9516
G. MARTINEZ, JR., and LESLIE S. JOHNS, Attorneys at Law, for
K. ZIBRITOSKY, Law Director, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
S. CALLAHAN JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Martin, appeals from the judgment
of the Stow Municipal Court, denying his motions to suppress.
This Court affirms.
Late one evening, Officer Max Westfall responded to
Akron-Peninsula Road based on a report that a female had
jumped from a moving car. Upon his arrival, he found Mr.
Martin on the roadside next to the injured female, who had
been the only passenger in the car Mr. Martin had been
driving. Officer Westfall spoke with Mr. Martin and detected
a strong odor of alcohol coming from his person. Because he
also detected several other indicia of impairment and Mr.
Martin admitted that he had been drinking, he asked Mr.
Martin to submit to field sobriety testing and a portable
breath test. Mr. Martin, however, refused both tests. Based
on the strong odor of alcohol he detected, the other indicia
of impairment he observed, Mr. Martin's admission to
drinking alcohol, and his refusal to undergo sobriety tests,
Officer Westfall then arrested Mr. Martin.
After arresting Mr. Martin, Officer Westfall transported him
to the Richfield Police Department so that a breath test
could be administered. Mr. Martin initially refused to take
that test as well, but agreed after Officer Westfall and
another officer explained the consequences that could result
from his refusal. It was then determined that Mr. Martin had
a blood alcohol level of .172.
Mr. Martin was charged with two counts of operating a vehicle
under the influence of alcohol ("OVI"), in
violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and 4511.19(A)(1)(h). He
filed several motions to suppress, and the court held a
hearing on his motions. Following the hearing, the court
denied the motions, and Mr. Martin pleaded no contest to the
charges. The court sentenced him to 90 days in jail, a year
of community control, a fine, and a license suspension.
Mr. Martin now appeals and raises one assignment of error for
this Court's review.
TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY DENYING
HIS MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE.
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Martin argues that the
trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress. He
argues that his motions had merit because Officer Westfall
lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him for field sobriety
testing, lacked probable cause to arrest him, and implied
coercive tactics when obtaining his consent to submit to a