[Cite as State v. Pearson, 2019-Ohio-740.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellant 

 v. 

CASWELL PEARSON, JR. 

 Appellee 

C.A. No. 18CA0039-M 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

MEDINA MUNICIPAL COURT 

COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO 

CASE No. 17 TRC 05214 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY 

Dated: March 4, 2019 

 

CARR, Judge. 

{¶1} Appellant the State of Ohio appeals from the judgment of the Medina Municipal 

Court granting Defendant-Appellee Caswell Pearson, Jr.’s motion to suppress. This Court 

reverses and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

I. 

{¶2} On August 25, 2017, Trooper Harold McCumbers with the Ohio State Highway 

Patrol was a uniformed officer working at a sobriety checkpoint in Brunswick. According to a 

media release, the checkpoint was “planned to deter and intercept impaired drivers.” That 

evening, traffic traveling eastbound on State Route 303 towards Warren Drive encountered the 

checkpoint. 

{¶3} Around 10:00 p.m., Pearson drove into the checkpoint area. Prior to Pearson 

reaching Trooper McCumbers, Trooper McCumbers could already smell the odor of marijuana. 

Trooper McCumbers walked to the driver’s side of Pearson’s vehicle and could smell the odor of 
2 

 

burnt marijuana coming from inside the vehicle. In addition, Pearson had red, bloodshot eyes 

and his speech was slow or delayed. Pearson admitted to smoking marijuana within two and a 

half hours of driving through the checkpoint. 

{¶4} Based upon these signs of impairment, Trooper McCumbers had Pearson exit the 

vehicle and walk over to the area where field sobriety tests were being conducted. Pearson 

participated in the field sobriety tests and was thereafter arrested. Trooper McCumbers 

transported Pearson to the Medina Highway Patrol Post. There Pearson was asked to provide a 

urine sample, which Pearson agreed to do. 

{¶5} Two complaints were filed in two separate cases alleging Pearson violated R.C. 

4511.19(A)(1)(a) and 4511.19(A)(1)(j). Ultimately, the two cases were consolidated. Pearson 

filed a motion to suppress challenging: (1) the constitutionality of the checkpoint; (2) whether 

the field sobriety tests were conducted in substantial compliance with the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration standards; (3) whether there was probable cause to arrest Pearson; 

and (4) whether there was substantial compliance with Ohio Administrative Code regulations 

concerning the urine test. The matter proceeded to a hearing. During closing argument, 

Pearson’s counsel focused on two issues: whether the checkpoint satisfied the fourth prong of 

the test articulated in State v. Goines, 16 Ohio App.3d 168 (2d. Dist. 1984) and whether there 

was substantial compliance with Ohio Administrative Code regulations concerning the urine test. 

{¶6} Following the hearing, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting the motion 

to suppress. Therein, the trial court first evaluated whether Goines was the applicable test and 

determined that it was. The trial court then found that the State failed to establish compliance 

with the fourth Goines prong: “a predetermination by policy-making administrative officers of 

the roadblock location, time, and procedures to be employed, pursuant to carefully formulated 
3 

 

standards and neutral criteria.” (Internal quotations and citation omitted.) See Goines at 171. In 

so doing, the trial court, despite admitting certain exhibits, appeared to question their evidentiary 

value because the witnesses did not have personal knowledge about the information contained in 

the exhibits. See State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148, 2007-Ohio-1251, ¶ 17 (“[T]he Rules of 

Evidence do not apply to suppression hearings.”); State v. Edwards, 107 Ohio St.3d 169, 2005-

Ohio-6180, ¶ 14 (“[J]udicial officials at suppression hearings may rely on hearsay and other 

evidence, even though that evidence would not be admissible at trial.”) (Internal quotations and 

citation omitted.). Ultimately, the trial court concluded that the checkpoint did not “comport 

with applicable constitutional standards.” 

{¶7} The State has appealed, raising a single assignment of error for our review. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE MEDINA MUNICIPAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE OVI 

CHECKPOINT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE. 

{¶8} The State argues in its sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in relying 

on the test in Goines in determining the constitutionality of the checkpoint; instead, the State 

contends that the trial court should have applied the test in State v. Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d 389 

(2001). We agree. 

{¶9} A motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. 

Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. “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 the credibility of witnesses.” Id., citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio 

St.3d 357, 366 (1992). Thus, a reviewing court “must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if 

they are supported by competent, credible evidence.” Burnside at ¶ 8. “Accepting these facts as 
4 

 

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., citing State v. 

McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (4th Dist.1997). 

{¶10} “The search and seizure provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions 

are implicated in this case because a vehicle stop at a highway checkpoint constitutes a ‘seizure’ 

within the meaning of the Ohio and United States Constitutions even though the purpose of the 

stop is limited and the resulting detention brief.” Orr at 391. 

{¶11} In concluding that Goines applied, the trial court looked to this Court’s decision in 

State v. Hirsch, 9th Dist. Medina No. 13CA0025-M, 2014-Ohio-5388, for guidance. However, 

in Hirsch, this Court did not adopt Goines as the appropriate test. See id. at ¶ 11; see also id. at ¶ 

19 (Carr, J., dissenting). This Court specifically noted that, “because of the limited nature of the 

State’s arguments, this Court need not decide whether the Goines test has any application in 

evaluating the constitutionality of checkpoints.” Id. 

{¶12} In 2005, in State v. Willard, 9th Dist. Medina No. 04CA0045-M, 2005-Ohio1627, this Court applied the test outlined in Orr in evaluating the constitutionality of a sobriety 

checkpoint. See id. at ¶ 19. That test examined the following three factors: “(1) the particular 

checkpoint’s intrusion on privacy, (2) the state’s interest in maintaining the checkpoint, and (3) 

the extent to which the checkpoint advances the state interest.” (Internal quotations omitted.) 

Id., quoting Orr at 392, citing Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). 

While Orr involved a driver’s license checkpoint, see Orr, 91 Ohio St.3d at 390, it nonetheless

relied upon the test outlined in Sitz, a sobriety checkpoint case. See Orr at 393. Thus, “it is 

reasonable to conclude that the Ohio Supreme Court would apply the same test it articulated in 

Orr” in evaluating the constitutionality of a sobriety checkpoint. Hirsch at ¶ 10. This Court is 
5 

 

not inclined to adopt the test in Goines, a test which has only been adopted by some lower 

appellate courts in Ohio, when the Supreme Court has already set forth a test to evaluate the 

constitutionality of checkpoints. Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred in applying Goines 

to the facts of this matter. 

{¶13} We note that, in its decision, the trial court concluded that Pearson “narrowed his 

challenge to the constitutionality of the sobriety checkpoint” to whether “the checkpoint [] failed 

to comply with prong four of the standard [in Goines.]” It is unclear to this Court whether the 

foregoing requires the conclusion that the trial court also found that Pearson did not preserve any 

challenge to the factors in the Orr test. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether 

Pearson preserved a challenge to the factors in Orr, and if so, evaluate whether the State satisfied 

the Orr test in the first instance. If applicable, the trial court must also evaluate any of Pearson’s 

other preserved arguments concerning suppression. 

{¶14} The State’s assignment of error is sustained. 

III. 

{¶15} The State’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Medina 

Municipal Court is reversed and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

Judgment reversed, 

and cause remanded. 

 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
6 

 

 We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Medina Municipal 

Court, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. 

 Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the 

period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is 

instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the 

mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. 

 Costs taxed to Appellee. 

 

 DONNA J. CARR 

 FOR THE COURT 

TEODOSIO, P. J. 

CALLAHAN, J. 

CONCUR. 

APPEARANCES: 

J. MATHEW LANIER, Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellant. 

CHAD MULKEY, Assistant Public Defender, for Appellee.