FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE BARBERTON MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY
OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 16 TRC 4025
T. FORRISTAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
JENNIFER ROBERTS, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
S. CALLAHAN, JUDGE
Appellant, Kimberly Mackim, appeals from her conviction for
operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol
("OVI") in the Barberton Municipal Court. For the
reasons set forth below, this Court reverses.
A New Franklin patrolman ("the Officer") responded
to a call from a gas station owner regarding a woman, Ms.
Mackim, who was asleep in the driver's seat of a truck
parked in the gas station parking lot. After briefly
questioning Ms. Mackim, the officer administered field
sobriety tests to her and subsequently arrested her for OVI
pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).
Ms. Mackim filed a motion to suppress and a hearing was held.
Ms. Mackim challenged the following: 1) the Officer's
initial contact with Ms. Mackim as being a community
caretaking function, 2) the Officer's compliance with the
NHTSA standards in administering the field sobriety tests, 3)
the Officer's reasonable suspicion to detain her to
administer the field sobriety tests, and 4) the Officer's
probable cause to arrest her. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement and
permitted the parties to file post-hearing briefs.
On the record at a pre-jury conference, the trial court
orally granted Ms. Mackim's motion to suppress the field
sobriety test results and the Officer's expert opinions
regarding Ms. Mackim's impairment based on the test
results. The trial court denied the remainder of Ms.
Mackim's motion to suppress. The trial court did not
journalize the suppression decision. Ms. Mackim proceeded to
a jury trial and was found guilty of OVI.
Ms. Mackim has timely appealed her conviction and raises
three assignments of error.
OF ERROR NO. 1
TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED, IN PART, [MS. MACKIM'S]
MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
Ms. Mackim asserts that the trial court erred in denying her
motion to suppress by finding that the Officer engaged in a
community caretaking encounter, by finding that the Officer
had reasonable suspicion to detain her and to administer
field sobriety tests, and by finding that the Officer had
probable cause to arrest her. To the extent that Ms. Mackim
argues that the initial encounter exceeded the scope of ...