Driving and reasonable suspicion of intoxication:<\/p>\n
State v. Penix<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 4050, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 3427 (11th Dist. August 8, 2008):<\/p>\n [*P11] In Evans<\/em>, we set forth a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered when determining whether a police officer has a reasonable suspicion of intoxication justifying the administration of field sobriety tests. That list, on which no one factor is dispositive, consists of the following:<\/p>\n [*P12] “(1) the time and day of the stop (Friday or Saturday night as opposed to, e.g., Tuesday morning); (2) the location of the stop (Whether near establishments selling alcohol); (3) any indicia of erratic driving before the stop that may indicate a lack of coordination (speeding, weaving, unusual braking, etc.); (4) whether there is a cognizable report that the driver may be intoxicated; (5) the condition of the suspect’s eyes (bloodshot, glassy, glazed, etc.); (6) impairments of the suspect’s ability to speak (slurred speech, overly deliberate speech, etc.); (7) the odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car, or more significantly, on the suspect’s person or breath; (8) the intensity of that odor, as described by the officer (‘very strong,’ ‘strong,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘slight,’ etc.); (9) the suspect’s demeanor (belligerent, uncooperative, etc.); (10) any actions by the suspect after the stop that might indicate a lack of coordination (dropping keys, falling over, fumbling for a wallet, etc.); and (11) the suspect’s admission of alcohol consumption, the number of drinks had, and the amount of time in which they were consumed, if given. All these factors, together with the officer’s previous experience in dealing with drunken drivers, may be taken into account by a reviewing court in determining whether the officer acted reasonably.” Id.<\/em> at f.n.2; accord, Reed<\/em>, supra, at P10-11; Brickman<\/em>, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2575, at *6-*7.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Erratic driving and smell of alcohol or admission of drinking is reasonable suspicion. State v. Pollman<\/a>, 286 Kan. 881, 190 P.3d 234 (2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading