Background
An Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper stopped Crystal L. Mason at approximately 1:23 a.m. after observing her turn without signaling. At the driver’s window, the trooper detected a very strong odor of alcohol and observed that Mason’s eyes were slightly red and glassy. After Mason exited the truck, the trooper determined that the odor was coming from her, and Mason admitted consuming three beers. The trooper also perceived her speech as slurred, although Mason said she had a speech impediment.
Mason agreed to perform field sobriety tests. The trooper observed six of six clues on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, three of eight clues on the walk-and-turn test, and two of four clues on the one-leg-stand test. Mason was arrested and charged with OVI and related offenses. After the municipal court denied her motion to suppress, she pleaded no contest and appealed, challenging the continued detention, the administration of the HGN test, and probable cause for her arrest.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that the signal violation justified the initial traffic stop and that the strong odor of alcohol, Mason’s red and glassy eyes, the odor continuing to emanate from her after she left the truck, her admission to drinking three beers, and the trooper’s perception of slurred speech collectively supplied reasonable, articulable suspicion to request field sobriety tests.
The court also held that the State established substantial compliance with NHTSA standards for the HGN test. Although the trooper acknowledged that his smooth-pursuit passes took less than the prescribed two seconds, the court treated the timing requirements as approximate and concluded that this deviation did not by itself defeat substantial compliance. Moreover, even excluding the two smooth-pursuit clues, the trooper observed four other HGN clues, the threshold he testified indicated impairment.
Finally, the court held that the totality of the circumstances established probable cause to arrest Mason for OVI. Her odor of alcohol, admission to drinking, red and glassy eyes, perceived slurred speech, and performance on the sobriety tests gave an objectively reasonable officer sufficient grounds to believe she had driven under the influence.
Key Takeaways
- A lawful traffic stop may be extended for field sobriety testing when additional observations create reasonable suspicion of impairment.
- An HGN timing deviation does not automatically require suppression when the test substantially complies with NHTSA standards and sufficient other clues remain.
- Probable cause for an OVI arrest depends on the totality of the circumstances and need not rest solely on field sobriety test results.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Fifth District’s view that NHTSA timing instructions for HGN testing are approximate for purposes of substantial-compliance review. A flaw affecting some HGN clues may not make the entire test inadmissible when enough independently observed clues remain.
The opinion also illustrates how several modest indicators—odor, eye condition, an admission of drinking, perceived slurred speech, and sobriety-test performance—may collectively justify both further investigation and an OVI arrest even when the officer observed no swerving, speeding, balance problems, or other pronounced signs of impaired driving.