[Cite as State v. Hardison, 2021-Ohio-1028.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsRAYSHAWN HARDISON 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. 

Case No. 2020 CA 0046 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 19 CR 869 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 29, 2021 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

WILLIAM C. HAYES WILLIAM T. CRAMER 

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 470 Olde Worthington Road 

PAULA M. SAWYERS Suite 200 

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Westerville, Ohio 43082 

20 South Second Street, Fourth Floor 

Newark, Ohio 43055 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0046 2

Wise, John, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Rayshawn Hardison appeals the May 1, 2020, 

judgment entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, denying his motion 

to suppress. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this 

appeal are as follows. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE 

{¶2} On October, 27, 2019, Appellant was arrested for Driving While Under the 

Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (OVI) in violation of R.C. 4511.19, a felony in the thirddegree due to a prior OVI conviction. In addition, Appellant was charged with driving under 

an OVI suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.14(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. 

{¶3} On January 14, 2020, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence in 

this matter. 

{¶4} On January 30, 2020, a hearing on the Motion to Suppress was held. 

{¶5} At the hearing, Officer Harris of the Newark Police Department testified that 

she was dispatched to the exit ramp to Country Club and Church Street off of Route 16 

westbound for a report of an unresponsive male behind the wheel. 

{¶6} Upon arriving on scene, she noted a female standing on the side of the road 

pointing to a black Honda Civic with taillights illuminated and left hand turn signal 

activated. It was stopped in the left-hand turn lane off of the exit ramp. As Harris 

approached the vehicle she noted Appellant was unresponsive in the driver’s seat, either 

unconscious or asleep, and that the vehicle was running and in drive. The window to the 

vehicle was partially open, and she detected a faint odor of alcohol coming from inside 

the vehicle. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0046 3

{¶7} Harris then attempted to reach into the car to unlock the door in order to 

place the car in park. At this point Appellant awoke and took his foot off of the brake, and 

the vehicle began rolling down the exit ramp. Harris then instructed Appellant to stop the 

vehicle and place the vehicle in park. Appellant was unable to do this until his vehicle 

struck a parked ambulance and came to a stop. Harris then had Appellant exit the vehicle 

to conduct a pat down for officer safety. 

{¶8} When Appellant exited the car, Harris smelled a stronger odor of alcohol 

coming from Appellant’s breath and on his person. Harris inquired if Appellant had been 

drinking. Appellant responded that he had the night before and the last beverage he 

remembered was around 2 a.m. Harris then asked how he came to be at the exit ramp. 

Appellant indicated the night before he had been at the Lucky Bamboo and then 

remembered nothing until he awoke on the exit ramp. 

{¶9} Harris then detained Appellant, as he was under suspicion of OVI. Harris 

observed that Appellant was wearing an ankle monitor. He confirmed he was wearing the 

monitor because he was on probation for a previous OVI charge. Office Harris ran 

Appellant’s information and determined Appellant was driving under a suspended license 

due to his previous OVI. 

{¶10} Appellee then showed a video of the interaction beginning with Officer 

Harris attempting to unlock Appellant’s car. The video then shows the car rolling into the 

ambulance. 

{¶11} Harris further testified she asked Appellant to perform standardized field 

sobriety tests, but Appellant refused to participate. Officer Harris then placed Appellant 

under arrest. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0046 4

{¶12} Appellant then testified he was not offered field sobriety tests, but admitted 

he was not handcuffed when questioned about his ankle monitor. 

{¶13} In its judgment entry date May 1, 2020, the trial court denied Appellant’s 

Motion to Suppress. The trial court found that Officer Harris responded to a call and 

observed the car stopped at the traffic light with its left turn signal activated. Harris found 

Appellant unconscious or asleep behind the wheel of a running car. There was an odor 

of alcohol coming from the vehicle. In order to safely put the vehicle in park, Harris had 

to open the door, at which point Appellant awoke and rolled his car into an ambulance. 

Appellant did not put his foot on the brake when ordered to do so. 

{¶14} The trial court further found Officer Harris could smell alcohol on Appellant’s 

breath, and that he was unsteady on his feet. Appellant had been drinking at Lucky 

Bamboo until two in the morning and could not recall anything after the Lucky Bamboo. 

Harris determined Appellant was under a driving suspension for a previous OVI, and 

Appellant refused field sobriety tests. Based on all of these findings, the trial court found 

Appellee had probable cause to arrest Appellant for OVI and for operating a vehicle with 

a suspended license. 

{¶15} On July 14, 2020, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to both charges. 

The trial court sentenced Appellant to two years in prison, the mandatory minimum fine 

of $1,350, and a five-year driver license suspension for the driving under an OVI 

suspension charge. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶16} On July, 2020, Appellant filed a notice of appeal and herein raises the 

following sole Assignment of Error: 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0046 5

{¶17} “I. APPELLANT’S FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 

WERE VIOLATED BY AN ARREST FOR AN OVI THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY 

PROBABLE CAUSE.”

I. 

{¶18} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court 

erred in denying his motion to suppress. We disagree. 

{¶19} Appellate review of a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress 

involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Long, 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332, 713 

N.E.2d 1 (4th Dist.1998). During a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role 

of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to 

evaluate witness credibility. State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 154, 1996-Ohio-134, 661 

N.E.2d 1030. A reviewing court is bound to accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they 

are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142, 

145, 675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th Dist. 1996). Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court 

must independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court’s 

conclusion, whether the trial court’s decision meets the applicable legal standard. State 

v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d 37, 41, 619 N.E.2d 1141 (4th Dist.1993), overruled on other 

grounds, State v. Gunther, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 04CA25, 2005-Ohio-3492, ¶16. 

{¶20} Three methods exist to challenge a trial court’s ruling on a motion to 

suppress. First, appellant may challenge the trial court’s findings of facts. State v. 

Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Second, appellant may argue the 

trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law of the findings of fact. In that 

case, the appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. Williams
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0046 6

at 41. Third, appellant may argue the trial court incorrectly decided the ultimate issue 

raised in the motion to suppress. When addressing the third type of challenge, an 

appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court’s 

conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in the given case 

(Citation omitted.) State v. Curry, 95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96, 641 N.E.2d 1172 (8th Dist.1994). 

{¶21} In the case sub judice, Appellant argues Officer Harris had no probable 

cause to arrest Appellant for an OVI. We disagree. A police officer has probable cause 

for an arrest if the facts and circumstances within his knowledge are sufficient to cause a 

reasonably prudent person to believe that the defendant has committed the offense. State 

v. Cummings, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2005-CA-00295, 2006-Ohio-2431, ¶15, citing State v. 

Heston, 29 Ohio St.2d 152, 280 N.E.2d 376 (1972). In making this determination, the trial 

court must examine the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. See

State v. Miller, 117 Ohio App.3d 750, 761, 691 N.E.2d 703 (11th Dist.1997); State v. 

Brandenburg, 41 Ohio App.3d 109, 111, 534 N.E.2d 906 (2nd Dist.1987). When evaluating 

probable cause to arrest for OVI, the totality of the circumstances can support a finding 

of probable cause to arrest even where no field sobriety tests are administered. See State 

v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000). 

{¶22} In the case at bar, Officer Harris testified Appellant was asleep behind the 

wheel of a running vehicle which was in drive at 8 a.m. Appellant told Harris he was 

drinking until 2 a.m. at a bar and had no memory from 2 a.m. until he awoke behind the 

wheel at 8 a.m. Upon waking up, Appellant rolled his car into a parked ambulance. 

Appellant did not respond to Officer Harris telling him to stop the vehicle and put it in park. 

Upon Appellant leaving the vehicle, Officer Harris smelled the odor of alcohol coming from 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 0046 7

Appellant’s breath. Officer Harris also discovered Appellant was driving on suspension 

for a previous OVI. 

{¶23} Appellant points to Cincinnati v. Bryant, where the First District Court of 

Appeals held a minor traffic violation in connection with arresting officer’s perception of 

an odor of alcohol does not rise to the level of probable cause. Cincinnati v. Bryant, 1st

Dist. Hamilton No. C-090546, 2010-Ohio-4474, ¶25, citing State v. Taylor, 3 Ohio App.3d 

197, 198, 444 N.E.2d 481 (1st Dist.1981). However, in the case at bar, Officer Harris had 

more indicia than the odor of alcohol and a minor traffic violation. Appellant admitted to 

Officer Harris that Appellant drank alcohol the night before, to having a six hour gap in 

memory, and to being on suspension for a previous OVI. 

{¶24} Based on Officer Harris’s testimony we find that the totality of facts and 

circumstances supported a finding of probable cause to arrest Appellant for driving under 

the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19. 

{¶25} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled. 

{¶26} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Licking County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed. 

By: Wise, John, J. 

Baldwin, P. J., and 

Wise, Earle, J., concur. 

 

JWW/br 0326