[Cite as State v. Barnett, 2018-Ohio-2486.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MAHONING COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RUFUS BARNETT, 

Defendant-Appellee.

 

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Case No. 17 MA 0055 

 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio 

Case No. 2016 CR 1173. 

BEFORE: 

Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. 

JUDGMENT: 

Affirmed 

Atty. Paul Gains, Prosecutor and Atty. Ralph Rivera, Assistant Prosecutor, 21 West 

Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Plaintiff-Appellant, and 

Atty. Bradley G. Olson, Jr., 26 Market Street, Suite 508, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Dated: 

 June 22, 2018 
 – 2 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

 

Donofrio, J. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals from a Mahoning County 

Common Pleas Court judgment granting a motion to suppress evidence obtained when 

officers of the Youngstown Police Department impounded and subsequently searched 

the vehicle of defendant-appellee, Rufus Barnett. 

{¶2} The facts in this case are undisputed. Officers Savnik and Caraway from 

the Youngstown Police Department were patrolling the south side of the city of 

Youngstown on October 11, 2016. Around 1:00 a.m., Officers Savnik and Caraway 

began to follow appellee’s car as it was traveling down Oak Hill Avenue (Oak Hill) 

towards Mahoning Avenue (Mahoning). Officers Savnik and Caraway followed 

appellee’s car for several blocks totaling around 200 yards. At this point, the officers did 

not observe appellee commit any traffic violations. 

{¶3} When appellee arrived at the intersection of Oak Hill and Mahoning 

(intersection), Officers Savnik and Caraway were still following him. Oak Hill ends at this 

intersection. At Mahoning, Oak Hill heading north turns into two lanes, the left lane to 

travel on Mahoning away from downtown Youngstown and the right lane to travel on 

Mahoning towards downtown Youngstown. On the right hand side of the intersection on 

Oak Hill is a traffic sign that indicates the left lane is a left-turn only lane and the right 

lane is a straight-bound lane. Despite the traffic sign indicating the right lane as a 

straight-bound lane, a slight right turn must be negotiated when traveling from Oak Hill 

to Mahoning heading towards downtown Youngstown. Additionally, there is a traffic sign 

at the intersection facing Oak Hill that reads “No Turn on Red.” When appellee arrived 

at the intersection, he moved into the right lane and the traffic light was red. Appellee 

did not have a turn signal on when he arrived at the intersection. 

{¶4} After coming to a complete stop at the intersection, when the light turned 

green, appellee activated his right turn signal and proceeded on Mahoning into 

downtown Youngstown. Officers Savnik and Caraway initiated a traffic stop of appellee 

for a violation of R.C. 4511.39 in that appellee did not have his turn signal activated for 

at least 100 feet prior to performing a turn. 
 – 3 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

{¶5} Officer Savnik then began talking to appellee. Officer Savnik asked 

appellee for his operator’s license but appellee could not produce his license and 

instead gave Officer Savnik his name and date of birth. Officer Savnik checked 

appellee’s name through the LEADS system which indicated that appellee was under 

an FRA license suspension. As appellee was the only person in the car, Officer Savnik 

frisked appellee for weapons, placed appellee in the back of his squad car, had 

appellee’s car impounded, and called a tow truck to retrieve the car. 

{¶6} After appellee’s car was impounded, Officer Savnik performed an 

administrative inventory search of the car. Officer Savnik discovered a package 

containing what he believed was heroin in the door panel of the passenger side of 

appellee’s car. Officer Savnik then arrested and charged appellee with possession of 

heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(6)(a), a felony of the fifth degree, and had 

appellee transported to the Mahoning County Jail. 

{¶7} Appellee filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of 

his car. The basis for the motion was that appellee substantially complied with the 

requirements of R.C. 4511.39 in that he signaled his intention to make a turn prior to 

making a turn. Moreover, appellee argued that the “spirit” of R.C. 4511.39 is not violated 

simply because a person may fail to signal an intention to make a turn prior to 100 feet 

before the turn is made. Appellee argued that because the stop was unlawful, the 

evidence should have been suppressed. In the alternative, appellee argued that even if 

the traffic stop was valid, he was made subject to an unlawful arrest because neither 

R.C. 4511.39 nor driving under an FRA suspension warranted an arrest as appellee 

was placed in the back of Officer Savnik’s cruiser. 

{¶8} The state’s response to appellee’s motion to suppress argued that Officers 

Savnik and Caraway witnessed a traffic violation and had sufficient reasonable 

suspicion to initiate the traffic stop of appellee. Additionally, the state argued that 

pursuant to the Youngstown Municipal Code and case law, Officer Savnik had authority 

to impound appellee’s vehicle and perform an inventory search under the circumstances 

surrounding appellee’s traffic stop. 

{¶9} At the end of the suppression hearing, the trial court instructed counsel for 

both the state and appellee to provide the court with additional written arguments 
 – 4 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

pertaining to appellee’s duty to signal at the intersection. The trial court seemed to want 

more information regarding appellee’s duty to signal a turn when the posted traffic 

device indicates the lane is straight-bound. (Supp. Tr. at 55). 

{¶10} Appellee then filed a supplemental brief after the suppression hearing. In 

his supplemental brief, appellee argued that because the signage at the intersection 

labeled appellee’s lane of travel as a straight-bound lane, appellee was under no 

obligation to signal a turn. 

{¶11} After appellee’s supplemental brief was filed, the state filed a motion to 

reopen the suppression hearing on the basis that appellee was now raising new 

arguments not addressed in appellee’s original motion to suppress. The record does not 

indicate that the trial court ruled on this motion but the state did not raise this issue for 

appeal. 

{¶12} Ultimately, the state did file a supplemental brief arguing again that 

because appellee had to physically turn his car to the right on Mahoning from Oak Hill, 

appellee was required to use his turn signal. In the alternative, the state argued that the 

good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because Officers Savnik and 

Caraway reasonably believed they witnessed appellee commit a traffic violation. 

{¶13} The state also filed a motion to admit stipulations of facts. The motion 

contained two facts to supplement the facts elicited at the suppression hearing. Those 

facts were: a standard traffic light exists at the intersection where a 45 degree right 

angle existed on the green light and a “No Turn on Red” sign was present at the 

intersection. There was no apparent ruling on this motion either, but appellee has never 

contested these facts. 

{¶14} On March 10, 2017, the trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress 

and ruled that any and all evidence gathered as a result of appellee’s traffic stop was to 

be suppressed. The trial court reasoned that appellee was not required to signal a turn 

because of the street sign indicating that his lane of travel was a straight-bound lane 

and that the good faith exception did not apply due to the lack of sufficient facts 

presented by the state. The state timely filed this appeal on March 23, 2017. The state 

raises one assignment of error. 

{¶15} The state’s sole assignment of error states: 
 – 5 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

 THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE DENIED DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE YOUNGSTOWN OFFICER JEFF 

SAVNIK HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT 

VIOLATED R.C. 4511.39 WHEN HE EFFECTUATED A TRAFFIC STOP 

OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOES 

NOT APPLY BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S SUSPENDED LICENSE. 

{¶16} The state raises two arguments regarding its sole assignment of error. 

The first argument is that Officer Savnik had probable cause to initiate the traffic stop of 

appellee for a violation of R.C. 4511.39 when appellee traveled from Oak Hill to 

Mahoning without using a turn signal prior to 100 feet before turning. The state supports 

this argument with case law citing similar circumstances and a case stating that just 

because a conviction could not be obtained on a traffic violation does not negate the 

fact that probable cause for a traffic stop exists. The state’s second argument is that 

even if the requisite level of suspicion was not present at the time Officer Savnik 

initiated the traffic stop of appellee, the attenuation doctrine applies and the exclusion of 

any evidence from the inventory search was improper. 

{¶17} A motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. When 

considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is 

therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate witness 

credibility. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. 

The appellate court must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by 

competent and credible evidence. Id. Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court 

must then independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial 

court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. Id. 

{¶18} Addressing the state’s second argument concerning the attenuation 

doctrine first, the state failed to raise this issue with the trial court in its original response 

to appellee’s motion to suppress, the suppression hearing itself, or in its response brief 

after the hearing on the motion to suppress. The general rule is that “an appellate court 

will not consider any error which counsel for a party complaining of the trial court’s 

judgment could have called but did not call to the trial court’s attention at a time when 

such error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court.” State v. Anwan, 22 
 – 6 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

Ohio St. 3d 120, 489 N.E.2d 277 (1986) citing State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St. 2d 83, 236 

N.E.2d 545 (1968). Because the state did not raise the attenuation doctrine argument 

with the trial court, such argument will not be considered in this appeal. 

{¶19} Concerning the state’s requisite level of suspicion argument, the trial 

court’s findings of fact during the suppression hearing were previously set forth. As 

neither the state nor appellee disputes the facts and the trial court’s findings of fact are 

supported by competent and credible evidence from the record, this Court accepts the 

trial court’s findings of fact as true. 

{¶20} Applying the law to the facts, the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution guarantee the right to be 

free from unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 

2008-Ohio-4539, 894 N.E.2d 1204 ¶ 7. A traffic stop is constitutionally valid only if an 

officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion that a motorist has committed, is 

committing, or is about to commit a crime. Id. citing Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 

99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). “The propriety of an investigative stop by a police 

officer must be viewed in the light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances.” Id.

quoting State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 414 N.E.2d 1044 (1980). 

{¶21} The state’s primary argument is that regardless of the signage at the 

intersection, appellee had to physically negotiate a right turn on to Mahoning to head to 

downtown Youngstown. The state cites several cases in support of its argument that 

regardless of how slight a right turn may be, a signal indicating a right turn is still 

necessary pursuant to R.C. 4511.39. 

{¶22} In State v. Baker, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-170, 2011-Ohio-5769, the Tenth 

District held that a traffic stop for failing to use a turn signal was reasonable when 

defendant-appellant Baker veered right at a “Y” intersection. The Ninth District has held 

similarly to the Baker decision on a similar issue in State v. Hoder, 9th Dist. No. 

03CA0042, 2004-Ohio-3083. The state even cites this Court’s decision in State v. 

Crisafi, 7th Dist. No. 00 CA 0040, 2001-Ohio-3254, where this Court ruled that probable 

cause for a traffic stop existed when defendant-appellant Crisafi made a “slight-right” 

turn without signaling. While these cases are informative regarding the duty of a 

motorist to signal a turn, the case at bar is distinguishable because none of the state’s 
 – 7 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

cited cases address the issue of a street sign informing the respective motorists that 

their designated lane of travel was straight-bound. 

{¶23} A strict reading of the relevant Revised Code sections is necessary to 

determine if reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of appellee existed. R.C. 

4511.39 itself states “When required, a signal of intention to turn or move right or left 

shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by 

the vehicle.” As the traffic sign indicated that appellee’s lane of travel was in fact straight 

bound, appellee was not required to signal. 

{¶24} Furthermore, R.C. 4511.01(Q)(Q) defines traffic control device, in part, as 

a sign used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic that is placed on, over, or adjacent to a 

street by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction. The Ohio Manual of 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (OMUTCD) is a document 

published by the Ohio Department of Transportation and it is the basis for placing and 

maintaining traffic control devices pursuant to R.C. 4511.11. Pursuant to R.C. 

4511.11(A), local authorities in their jurisdiction shall place traffic control devices that 

conform to the OMUTCD to “indicate and carry out sections 4511.01 to 4511.76 * * * of 

the Revised Code * * *.” 

{¶25} If the purpose of traffic control devices, including signs, is to indicate and 

carry out various traffic infractions, including failure to signal a turn in violation of R.C. 

4511.39, then the sign at issue indicates that appellee had no duty to signal a turn when 

Officers Savnik and Caraway initiated a traffic stop. Regardless of the physical 

necessity to turn slightly to the right when traveling from Oak Hill to Mahoning heading 

into downtown Youngstown, appellee was in a lane that was designated by a valid 

traffic control device as a straight-bound lane of travel. At no point did the state 

challenge the validity of the traffic sign at issue. Ultimately, there was no reasonable 

suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of appellee. Whatever the reason Officers Savnik and 

Caraway initiated the traffic stop of appellee, the underlying fact is that there was no 

suspicion that appellee committed, was committing, or was going to commit a traffic 

offense. Appellee complied with a validly placed traffic control device when he traveled 

from Oak Hill to Mahoning. And while at the intersection, but before appellee 

proceeded right, he did in fact signal. 
 – 8 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

{¶26} Furthermore, as the state points out, it is worth noting that there is a 

second sign at the intersection facing Oak Hill which reads “no turn on red.” There are 

two signs at the intersection: one that indicates the right lane is straight-bound and one 

that, potentially, indicates that the right lane is used to turn right. The fact that these 

conflicting signs exist creates the issue that it is virtually impossible to completely 

comply with all Ohio traffic laws at this particular intersection or any intersection where 

conflicting signs may exist. If a person were to signal a turn when traveling from Oak Hill 

to Mahoning towards downtown Youngstown, police could use the straight lane 

designation sign as reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. If a person were to not 

signal in time, as in this case, then police could use the no turn on red sign as 

reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. The fact that there are conflicting signs at 

the intersection that potentially create blanket reasonable suspicion for every car 

traveling from Oak Hill to Mahoning is bothersome. 

{¶27} Additionally, the state argues that the trial court held it to a higher burden 

of proof than a normal suppression hearing. Citing In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St. 3d 185, 

2008-Ohio-537, 897 N.E.2d 629, the state argues that the burden of establishing 

probable cause is “to produce evidence that raises more than a mere suspicion of guilt.” 

The state appears to argue that because the trial court granted appellee’s motion to 

suppress, the state was held above the standard set forth in J.L.S. This did not happen 

here. 

{¶28} Even in the absence of probable cause, an officer may initiate a traffic 

stop when the officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime has been or 

is being committed. State v. Foster, 1st Dist. No. C-160424, 2017-Ohio-4036, ¶ 16 citing 

State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-4539, 894 N.E.2d 1204. The propriety of 

an investigative stop must be viewed in light of the totality of the surrounding 

circumstances. State v. Ward, 7th Dist. No. 10 CO 28, 2011-Ohio-3183, ¶ 50 citing 

Mays. 

{¶29} Officers Savnik and Caraway followed appellee for about 200 yards. There 

is no evidence in the record that appellee was driving erratically. There is also no 

evidence in the record that there was anything wrong with appellee’s car such as 

broken lights or a missing license plate. The only evidence in the record which explains 
 – 9 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

why Officers Savnik and Caraway stopped appellee was due to his failure to signal 

before the intersection. This alone does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to 

initiate a traffic stop. 

{¶30} Appellee was traveling in a designated straight-bound lane. Pursuant to 

R.C. 4511.39, a motorist need only signal when required. By not signaling, appellee was 

complying with a validly placed traffic control sign. Viewing the totality of the 

circumstances, there was no reasonable suspicion for Officers Savnik and Caraway to 

believe that appellee committed or was committing a traffic violation. 

{¶31} The good faith exception does not apply in this case either. In order for the 

good faith exception to the exclusionary rule to apply, officers must be acting in an 

objectively reasonable manner. See State v. McGee, 7th Dist. No. 12 MA 123, 2013-

Ohio-4165, ¶ 18 citing State v. George, 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d 640 (1989), see 

also State v. Dickman, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-597, 2015-Ohio-1915, ¶ 23. Based on the 

statute, which mandates a motorist’s duty to signal only when required, and the fact that 

appellee was in a lane designated as straight-bound, an objectively reasonable officer 

would not have concluded that appellee’s lack of a turn signal was a violation of R.C. 

4511.39. 

{¶32} Accordingly, the state’s sole assignment of error is without merit and is 

overruled. 

{¶33} For the above reasons, the trial court’s judgment is hereby affirmed. 

Waite, J., concurs 

Robb, P. J., dissents with dissenting Opinion attached 

Robb, P. J., dissenting opinion. 

{¶34} I respectfully dissent from the decision to uphold the trial court’s 

suppression of evidence. I believe the police officer possessed reasonable suspicion 

that a traffic violation occurred allowing him to stop Appellee’s vehicle. 

{¶35} “[I]f an officer's decision to stop a motorist for a criminal violation, including 

a traffic violation, is prompted by a reasonable and articulable suspicion considering all 

the circumstances, then the stop is constitutionally valid. State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 
 – 10 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

406, 2008-Ohio-4539, 894 N.E.2d 1204, ¶ 8; Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 

99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). In other words, a police officer's objectively 

reasonable belief that a traffic violation has occurred constitutes reasonable suspicion to 

justify a traffic stop. Heien v. North Carolina, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 530, 536, 190 

L.E.2d 475 (2014). A court’s decision on the validity of the traffic stop must be “based 

on the collection of factors, not on the individual factors themselves.” Mays, 119 Ohio 

St.3d 406 at ¶ 12, quoting State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403, 2007-Ohio-2204, 865 

N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 11. The Mays Court explained: 

Probable cause is certainly a complete justification for a traffic stop, but 

we have not held that probable cause is required. Probable cause is a 

stricter standard than reasonable and articulable suspicion. The former 

subsumes the latter. Just as a fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt has 

by necessity been proven by a preponderance, an officer who has 

probable cause necessarily has a reasonable and articulable suspicion, 

which is all the officer needs to justify a stop. 

(Citations omitted). Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 at ¶ 23. 

{¶36} In Mays, the defense argued the officer who stopped him for crossing a 

lane line had no reason to suspect the defendant failed to ascertain the move could be 

safely performed or to suspect the defendant failed to stay within his lane as nearly as 

practicable. See R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) (on certain types of roads a vehicle “shall be 

driven, as nearly as is practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic and shall 

not be moved from such lane or line until the driver has first ascertained that such 

movement can be made with safety.”). The Ohio Supreme Court noted the relevant 

statute did provide for certain conditions under which a driver can cross a lane line 

without violating the statute but concluded “the question of whether Appellee might have 

a possible defense to a charge of violating [the traffic statute] is irrelevant in our analysis 

of whether an officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop.” 

Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 at ¶ 17 (adding the officer need not ascertain whether the 

driver might have a legal defense). See also Bowling Green v. Godwin, 110 Ohio St.3d 

58, 2006-Ohio-3563, 850 N.E.2d 698, ¶ 6-9, 15-16 (improper signs at exit to city parking 
 – 11 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

lot did not invalidate stop of driver who violated the signs as “the fact that appellee could 

not be convicted of failure to obey a traffic-control device is not determinative of whether 

the officer acted reasonably in stopping and citing him for that offense.”) 

{¶37} As does the majority, I find informative the various appellate cases finding 

a traffic stop was reasonable where the motorist failed to use a turn signal when 

changing streets at a T intersection or Y intersection. See, e.g., State v. Barker, 10th 

Dist. No. 11AP-170, 2011-Ohio-5769, ¶ 12-13 (finding reasonable suspicion to stop 

where motorist veered right at Y intersection onto a different street without signaling, 

even though the turn was not well-defined); State v. Beacham, 4th Dist. No. 03CA36, 

2003-Ohio-6211, ¶ 11, 16 (finding the stop was valid where driver failed to signal a turn 

where intersecting street was at a forty-five degree angle as opposed to a traditional 

ninety-degree angle); See also State v. Hoder, 9th Dist. No. 03CA0042, 2004-Ohio3083, ¶ 16 (rejecting motorist’s testimony that he was not required to use a turn signal 

where his lane of travel indicated that he must proceed at the Y intersection onto a 

different street); State v. Crisafi, 7th Dist. No. 00-CA-40 (May 3, 2011) (slight right 

veering onto different street with greater movement left to stay on current street). 

{¶38} The fact the vehicle’s movement onto a different street may not require a 

ninety-degree turn does not eliminate an officer’s reasonable suspicion concerning a 

turn signal violation. As the state points out, a right turn had to be physically negotiated 

to leave Oak Hill and turn onto Mahoning Avenue at the Spring Common Bridge. The 

majority finds the situation here distinguishable from other cases because a street sign 

near the intersection portrayed the right lane with a straight arrow. (And, the sign 

portrayed the left lane with an arrow pointing to the left.) The majority concludes 

Appellee was in a lane designated as a straight lane. Because the street on which 

Appellee was driving did not continue straight but stopped at the T-like intersection, the 

majority believes the straight arrow must mean the right turn is considered straight to 

whatever government agency placed the sign and this in turn constitutionally prohibits 

an officer from stopping a vehicle who does not use its turn signal to turn right onto the 

bridge. I disagree. 

{¶39} As aforementioned, the officer testified a right-hand turn had to be 

negotiated from Oak Hill Avenue onto the cross-street of Mahoning Avenue at the 
 – 12 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

Spring Common Bridge. Appellee made that right turn after stopping for the red light 

and waiting for it to turn green. The photographs submitted by Appellee depict how an 

approaching vehicle’s future movement onto the bridge would be a clear turn to the 

right. As for the lane designation sign on a pole on the side of the road, support is not 

provided for the proposition that a straight arrow means “straight only.” Otherwise, an 

intersection with this signage would not allow a right turn at a standard four-way 

intersection. Whether there is currently a way to proceed straight does not eliminate an 

officer’s reasonable suspicion to believe a turn signal was required where a vehicle 

negotiated a right turn onto a different road. I pose the question: what would happen in 

the case of a road which is blockaded for a short-term event or barricaded for a longterm construction project? Would a driver no longer be required to use his turn signal 

as long as the situation existed which impeded a driver’s ability to continue straight onto 

the same street? Contrary to the majority’s concern, this situation does not make it 

“impossible to completely comply with all Ohio traffic laws * * *.” Using a turn signal to 

make an obvious right turn onto a different street after waiting for the light to turn green 

at an intersection is not illegal.1 

{¶40} I do not perceive a meaningful conflict between the straight arrow sign and 

the street situation; not where the applicable test is whether the officer had reasonable 

and articulable suspicion for a traffic violation. Regardless, any conflict between the 

sign and the street situation would be a defense to the traffic offense, as opposed to the 

per se elimination of reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. The officer was not 

required to study the potential defenses to the traffic violation the driver may have 

available before activating his lights. See Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 at ¶17. It is the 

totality of the circumstances governing reasonable suspicion for a stop, not one 

individual circumstance. Id. at ¶ 12, quoting Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 at ¶ 11. 

{¶41} I would also note the following facts. After the suppression hearing, the 

 

1 The majority expresses concern an officer could use the sign with the straight arrow to stop a driver for 

using his right turn signal at this intersection (i.e., the officer could stop a driver for doing what the officer 

said Appellee should have done); however, no law is cited prohibiting the cautionary use of a turn signal 

at a T or Y intersection (even if, for instance, the movement was onto the same street). See, e.g., State 

v. Fears, 8th Dist. No. 94997, 2011-Ohio-930 (no reasonable suspicion for articulated traffic offense as 

officers mistakenly thought it was an offense to use turn signal at intersection without turning).
 – 13 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

trial court asked for briefs on the issue of the sign with the straight arrow. The state filed 

a brief and separately moved to reopen the suppression hearing due to lack of notice 

there was a suppression issue on the topic of signs. Thereafter, on February 9, 2017, 

the state filed a “motion to admit stipulation of facts” which facts the parties agreed a 

reopened hearing would show. The filing refers to a conversation with defense counsel 

and states “both counsel for the State and counsel for the Defendant do not object to 

the following facts being admitting into evidence” (apparently in lieu of reopening): (1) 

the green light section of the traffic signal contained a green arrow pointing in a fortyfive-degree angle; and (2) a “No Turn on Red” sign was hanging above the intersection. 

The filing does not contain defense counsel’s signature. The court’s March 10, 2017 

suppression decision does not mention these offered stipulated facts. The state’s brief 

refers to the “No Turn on Red” sign. Appellee’s brief also cites this filing in relating the 

fact that there was a “No Turn on Red” sign at the stoplight, essentially inviting this court 

to consider this fact as well. This fact makes the case for reasonable suspicion even 

stronger. 

{¶42} Finally, a review of the United States Supreme Court’s Heien case is 

warranted. In Heien, the state trial court denied a motion to suppress finding 

reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle due to a faulty brake light. The appellate court 

reversed and held the statutory language, requiring a car to be “equipped with a stop 

lamp,” only mandates a single lamp and thus the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for 

the stop. The North Carolina Supreme Court disagreed, holding that even if the driver 

did not violate the law, the officer's mistaken understanding of the law was reasonable, 

making the stop valid. The United States Supreme Court agreed finding there was 

reasonable suspicion justifying the stop under the Fourth Amendment because the 

officer’s mistake was objectively reasonable. Heien, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. at 540. 

{¶43} The United States Supreme Court clarified that both a mistake of fact and 

a mistake of law can justify a stop if the mistake was objectively reasonable. Id. at 539. 

“Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer's understanding of the 

facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken 

on either ground.” Id. at 536. The Court said its pronouncement related to (and 

validated) the constitutionality of the stop itself (and was not merely an exception to the 
 – 14 – 

Case No. 17 MA 0055

exclusionary rule). Id. at 538-539. The Court explained: 

Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a 

mistaken understanding of the law, so too the government cannot impose 

criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law. If the law 

required two working brake lights, [the defendant] could not escape a 

ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law 

required only one, [the officer] could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he 

reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law 

cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it 

does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop. And [the 

defendant] is not appealing a brake-light ticket; he is appealing a cocainetrafficking conviction as to which there is no asserted mistake of fact or 

law. 

(Emphasis added.) Id. at 540. 

{¶44} Even if the officer here was mistaken as to the applicability of the turn 

signal statute at an intersection such as exists here, any mistake would have been 

objectively reasonable. For all of the foregoing circumstances, I believe there was 

reasonable suspicion to stop Appellee after he turned right onto a different street 

without complying with the turn signal statute. In according, I would reverse the trial 

court’s decision suppressing the heroin evidence. 
[Cite as State v. Barnett, 2018-Ohio-2486.]

 

 

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, appellant’s sole 

assignment of error is without merit and is overruled. It is the final judgment and order 

of this Court that the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, Mahoning County, Ohio, is 

hereby affirmed. Robb, P.J. dissents with dissenting Opinion attached. Costs taxed 

against appellant. 

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in 

this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a 

certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution. 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.