Background
David McKim struck a guardrail in a single-car accident in Guernsey County. When Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Joshua Zaugg arrived, he detected an odor of alcohol and observed that McKim had bloodshot, glassy eyes, slow and slurred speech, a blank expression, and apparent confusion. McKim initially denied drinking but later acknowledged consuming alcohol. Field sobriety tests led to his arrest, and a urine test showed an alcohol level of .142.
McKim moved to suppress evidence on several grounds. After the suppression hearing, however, he pursued only the contention that the State failed to show that the first officer at the scene, Patrolman Andrew Stewart, had reasonable suspicion to detain him until Trooper Zaugg arrived. The trial court denied suppression, concluding that police had approached McKim while performing a community-caretaking function at an accident scene and that McKim had not established any detention before Zaugg removed him from the vehicle for field sobriety testing. McKim then pleaded no contest to operating a vehicle with a prohibited urine-alcohol level, received a 60-day jail sentence with 57 days suspended, and appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that McKim waived his appellate challenge to Stewart’s alleged detention because his written suppression motion did not identify, with sufficient particularity, either the duration of that alleged detention or the claim that Stewart lacked justification to hold him pending Zaugg’s arrival. Because the motion did not give the State adequate notice of that challenge, the burden never shifted to the State to justify the alleged detention.
The court further concluded that the encounter began as an accident investigation, not a traffic stop. Officers do not need reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to approach a driver and investigate an automobile accident, and they may conduct ordinary inquiries incident to that investigation, including checking the driver’s license. Because McKim’s motion did not claim Stewart prolonged the investigation beyond the time reasonably needed to investigate the crash or complete a license check, McKim failed to establish that Stewart detained him. The court determined that no detention occurred until Zaugg removed McKim from the vehicle to conduct field sobriety tests.
Key Takeaways
- A suppression motion must state its grounds with enough particularity to notify the prosecution and the trial court of the specific constitutional challenge.
- A defendant may waive an appellate suppression argument by failing to identify that argument adequately in the written motion.
- Police may approach a driver and conduct ordinary investigative inquiries at an accident scene without first having reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that detailed drafting is essential in suppression litigation. A broad challenge to an asserted traffic stop does not necessarily preserve a distinct claim that an officer unlawfully detained a driver while awaiting another officer.
It also distinguishes an officer’s investigation of a reported crash from a suspicion-based traffic stop. A driver challenging an accident-scene encounter must identify evidence of an actual seizure or an unjustified prolongation, rather than relying solely on the absence of reasonable suspicion at the moment police arrived.