[Cite as State v. Hairston, 2011-Ohio-2952.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsTODD HAIRSTON 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Case No. 2011 AP 01 0002 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the County Court, 

Uhrichsville, Case No. 2010 TRD 1060 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 14, 2011 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JAMES J. ONG GERALD A. LATANICH 

201 North Main Street TUSC. CTY. PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE 

Post Office Box 44683 153 North Broadway 

Uhrichsville, Ohio 44683 New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 01 0002 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Todd Hairston appeals from his conviction for driving under 

suspension in the Tuscarawas County Court, Uhrichsville, Ohio. The Appellee is the 

State of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows. 

{¶2} On or about May 16, 2010, Patrol Officer James McConnell of the 

Dennison Police Department was observing traffic in his marked cruiser. At a few 

minutes before 10:00 PM, in the vicinity of Logan Street in Dennison, McConnell 

observed a blue 1994 Ford fail to use its turn signal when making a right-hand turn from 

an alley. McConnell thereupon made a traffic stop of the Ford, which was being driven 

by appellant. Upon checking appellant’s information, McConnell discovered that 

appellant’s driver’s license was under a twelve point noncompliance suspension. 

{¶3} McConnell testified in pertinent part as follows regarding his decision to 

stop appellant’s automobile: 

{¶4} “Q. Do you recall when you first made contact or made visual contact with 

Mr. Hairston’s vehicle? 

{¶5} “A. Yes, I do. 

{¶6} “Q. Where were you located when you made contact with him? 

{¶7} “A. I was along Warehouse Alley and in between South Second and 

South Third Street. 

{¶8} “Q. Where was Mr. Hairston’s vehicle? 

{¶9} “A. He was turning right from the alley onto Logan. I believe it’s going to 

be South Third Drive to South Second Drive I think is the technical alley name for it. But 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 01 0002 3

he was turning off that alley right onto Logan Street whenever I observed him not use 

his turn signal. 

{¶10} “Q. Do you have any idea about how far behind you were, how close in 

proximity your cruiser was to Mr. Hairston’s vehicle when you observed him? 

{¶11} “A. I would have been at the very beginning of South Second Drive and 

he would have been, I would have been at Warehouse Alley and South Second Drive 

and he would have been at South Second Drive and Logan Street so it was a short 

distance, the alleyway. 

{¶12} “Q. Was there anything blocking your view -- 

{¶13} “A. No. 

{¶14} “Q. --of his vehicle? And you had indicated on the record that Mr. 

Hairston did not use his turn signal; is that correct? 

{¶15} “A. That is correct. 

{¶16} “Q. Any chance you were mistaken on this? 

{¶17} “A. No. 

{¶18} “Q. Did you see any turn signal of any sort while following Mr. Hairston? 

{¶19} “A. Nope. 

{¶20} “Q. Was it at night during the traffic stop? 

{¶21} “A. Yes. 

{¶22} “Q. Safe to say that if the blinker were used, there would have been some 

illumination that would have caught your attention? 

{¶23} “A. It would have. 

{¶24} “Q. And you didn’t see anything? 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 01 0002 4

{¶25} “A. No, I did not.” Tr., September 23, 2010, at 5-6. 

{¶26} Appellant was thereafter charged, via traffic summons, with driving under 

suspension (R.C. 4510.11) and failure to use a turn signal (Dennison Ordinances Sec. 

72.16). He entered pleas of not guilty. The case proceeded to a bench trial on 

September 23, 2010. Appellant, via counsel, obtained leave to further brief some of the 

legal issues pertaining to turn signal usage. Furthermore, on October 14, 2010, 

appellant filed a written motion to suppress evidence. The trial court, on November 23, 

2010, heard additional evidence and arguments pertaining to the issue of suppression. 

{¶27} On December 1, 2010, the trial court issued a combined judgment entry 

denying appellant’s motion to suppress and finding him guilty on both charges. On 

December 21, 2010, the trial court issued a final judgment entry with sentencing 

provisions. Appellant was ordered, inter alia, to serve 90 days in jail, with 65 days 

suspended. 

{¶28} On January 6, 2011, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein raises 

the following sole Assignment of Error: 

{¶29} “I. THERE WAS NO REASONABLE AND ARTICULABLE SUSPICION 

TO PULL OVER THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE.” 

I. 

{¶30} In his sole Assignment of Error, appellant contends the trial court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the traffic stop. We 

disagree. 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 01 0002 5

{¶31} A de minimis violation of traffic laws, including an observed turn signal 

violation, constitutes probable cause for a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle. See 

State v. Alemu, Licking App.No. 2005CA00039, 2005-Ohio-5955, ¶ 46 - ¶ 47. 

{¶32} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a 

motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's finding of fact. 

Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or 

correct law to the findings of fact. Finally, an appellant may argue the trial court has 

incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in the motion to suppress. See 

State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96, 641 N.E.2d 1172; State v. Claytor (1993), 

85 Ohio App.3d 623, 627, 620 N.E.2d 906; State v. Guysinger (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 

592, 621 N.E.2d 726. 

{¶33} In the case sub judice, we read appellant’s brief as contending that the 

trial court failed to correctly decide the facts connected to the motion to suppress. In 

reviewing this type of challenge, we must determine whether said findings of fact are 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. The weight to be given the evidence and 

the credibility of the witnesses are primarily for the trier of fact to determine, and it is not 

an appellate court's function to substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder. See 

State v. Ivers (Dec. 23, 1999), Licking App.No. 99CA48, 2000 WL 1480 (internal 

citations omitted). 

{¶34} Appellant herein called Ryan Presutti as an eyewitness in support of his 

suppression motion. Presutti, an acquaintance of appellant, was standing in front of a 

nearby garage on the evening in question. In his testimony, Presutti maintained that 

based on the relative positions of the vehicles and structures in the area, Officer 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 01 0002 6

McConnell could not have seen whether appellant had used his signal. See Tr., 

November 23, 2010, at 4-5. 

{¶35} The trial court was thus presented with two versions of the events leading 

to the traffic stop. However, as the State properly observes in its brief, the trial court had 

the duty to determine which portrayal of events was more credible. Under the 

circumstances presented in this case, we are disinclined to attempt to substitute our 

judgment for that of the trial court, which reviewed the evidence and heard the 

testimony firsthand. 

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

{¶37} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the 

Tuscarawas County Court, Uhrichsville, Ohio, is hereby affirmed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Gwin, P. J., and 

Farmer, J., concur. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES 

JWW/d 0527 
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011 AP 01 0002 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee : 

 : 

-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 : 

TODD HAIRSTON : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 2011 AP 01 0002 

 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the 

judgment of the Tuscarawas County Court, Uhrichsville, Ohio, is affirmed. 

 Costs assessed to appellant. 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 ___________________________________ 

 JUDGES