OH6: Smell of alcohol and glassy eyes at 4:30 am alone not RS

“Based on our case law and considering the totality of the circumstances, we cannot find that Kiefer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests to Dye. Based on the evidence and testimony in the record, we are left with Kiefer’s observations that Dye’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot (at 4:30 a.m.), and his testimony that Dye had a ‘strong’ odor of alcohol upon him, which he noticed when he ‘got close to [Dye]’ to perform a pat-down. As discussed above, there is no competent, credible evidence to suggest that Dye’s speech was slurred at any point before Kiefer began to administer the field sobriety tests. Additionally, there were no other indicia of impairment—such as erratic driving, admission to drinking alcohol, stumbling, falling, or fumbling for paperwork—that could support Kiefer’s administration of field sobriety tests.” State v. Dye, 2021-Ohio-3513, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3363 (6th Dist. Sept. 30, 2021).

In this murder case, the police entered for a well being check, and certain evidence was in plain view. The court finds the emergency justification was not exceeded and that which was seized was in plain view. People v. McCall, 2021 IL App (1st) 172105, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 546 (Sept. 30, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.