[Cite as State v. Sargent, 2020-Ohio-5464.]

Atty. Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Ralph M. Rivera, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, 21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, 

for Plaintiff-Appellant and 

Atty. Gregg Rossi, and Atty. James Melfi, Rossi & Rossi Co., 26 Market Street, 8th Floor, 

Huntington Bank Building, P.O. Box 6045, Youngstown, Ohio 44501, for DefendantAppellee. 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

MAHONING COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CHAD SARGENT, 

Defendant-Appellee.

 

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Case No. 20 MA 0034 

 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio 

Case No. 19-CR-956 

BEFORE: 

David A. D’Apolito, Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Judges. 

JUDGMENT: 

Affirmed. 
 – 2 – 

Case No. 20 MA 0034

Dated: November 18, 2020 

 

D’Apolito, J. 

{¶1} Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals from the March 4, 2020 judgment of 

the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas granting Appellee’s, Chad Sargent, motion 

to suppress following a hearing. On appeal, the State contends the trial court applied the 

wrong standard. Specifically, the State argues the trial court erred in determining that it 

had to demonstrate that Trooper John Lamm, with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, had 

probable cause to effectuate a traffic stop of Sargent’s vehicle for an R.C. 4513.05(A) 

license plate violation and in determining that it failed to demonstrate that Trooper Lamm 

had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to effectuate the stop. Finding no reversible error, 

we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} On November 7, 2019, Sargent was indicted by the Mahoning County 

Grand Jury on one count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, a felony of 

the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B) and (I). Sargent retained counsel, 

pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, and waived his right to a speedy trial. 

{¶3} On December 9, 2019, Sargent filed a motion to suppress. A hearing was 

held on February 19, 2020. 

{¶4} Trooper Lamm testified for the State that he works midnights and was on 

duty on May 6, 2019 in the Austintown area. (2/19/2020 Suppression Hearing T.p. 4, 9). 

The dash cam video was played for the court. (Id. at 5; State’s Exhibit 2). Trooper Lamm 

was traveling westbound on Mahoning Avenue. (Id. at 6). He observed Sargent’s vehicle 

making a right-hand turn onto Viall Road. (Id.) Trooper Lamm looked down the street 

and twice determined that Sargent’s license plate light was not illuminated in a manner 

which would make it readable from 50 feet. (Id.) Trooper Lamm stopped Sargent’s 

vehicle due to the alleged traffic violation. (Id. at 7). 

{¶5} As he approached the car, Trooper Lamm noticed that Sargent was

breathing heavily, “appeared overly nervous,” his eyes were “glassed over,” and the 

inside of his vehicle was “very cluttered,” but he did not smell any alcohol. (Id. at 8-9). 
 – 3 – 

Case No. 20 MA 0034

Trooper Lamm brought Sargent back to his cruiser and placed him in the front seat. (Id. 

at 9). Trooper Lamm performed an HGN test which did not reveal any clue that Sargent 

was impaired. (Id. at 10).

{¶6} Upon questioning, Sargent revealed that there was a loaded gun in the 

center console of his vehicle. (Id. at 11). The LEADS printout showed that Sargent did 

not have a concealed carry license. (Id.) Trooper Lamm placed Sargent in the back seat 

of his cruiser and he searched Sargent’s vehicle. (Id. at 13). Trooper Lamm then seized 

the firearm, placed Sargent under arrest, and took him to the station. (Id. at 13-14). 

{¶7} On cross-examination, Trooper Lamm testified that on the night at issue, he 

was heading westbound on Mahoning Avenue and Sargent was traveling eastbound. (Id. 

at 16). He observed Sargent’s vehicle making a right-hand turn onto Viall Road. (Id. at 

17). At that point, Trooper Lamm did not see the rear of Sargent’s car. (Id.) Trooper 

Lamm then also turned onto Viall Road and followed Sargent. (Id.) Trooper Lamm 

agreed, and the video reveals, “that the distance between when [he] activated [his] lights 

and where Mr. Sargent’s vehicle was was [sic] certainly greater than 50 feet.” (Id. at 19; 

State’s Exhibit 2). Trooper Lamm indicated that the sole reason why he effectuated the 

traffic stop of Sargent’s vehicle was because the rear license plate was not illuminated. 

(Id. at 19-20).

{¶8} When Trooper Lamm exited his cruiser to approach Sargent’s vehicle, he 

did not do a further inspection of the rear license plate light. (Id. at 22-23). Sargent was 

“cooperative and compliant” during the stop. (Id. at 24). A picture of Sargent’s license 

plate, HCC 6514, was taken after he was released showing two illuminated lights, “one 

on the left and one on the right.” (Id. at 27-28; Defendant’s Exhibit 1). 

{¶9} Sargent testified that his leased vehicle, a 2017 Chevrolet Silverado LT, is 

inspected every three months. (Id. at 32). Prior to the traffic stop, Greenwood Chevrolet 

had inspected his truck. (Id.) Thus, Sargent was “surprised” when Trooper Lamm 

stopped him due to his rear license plate not being illuminated. (Id. at 34). After Sargent 

was released, he retrieved his vehicle and inspected the license plate lights. (Id. at 35). 

At that time, Sargent took a photo of his license plate showing both lights on and in 

working order. (Id.; Defendant’s Exhibit 1). 

{¶10} On cross-examination, Sargent testified that he told Trooper Lamm that he 
 – 4 – 

Case No. 20 MA 0034

had a loaded gun in his vehicle and gave him consent to search his truck. (Id. at 39). 

Sargent agreed that the photo he had taken of his license plate shows no date and time 

and, therefore, could have been taken on any night. (Id. at 41-42). 

{¶11} On redirect examination, Sargent testified he was “positive” that he took the 

photograph of his license plate on the night at issue immediately after he was released 

and picked up his vehicle. (Id. at 44). 

{¶12} On March 4, 2020, the trial court granted Sargent’s motion to suppress. 

Specifically, the court determined there was no evidence of an R.C. 4513.05(A) traffic 

violation because Trooper Lamm’s cruiser was more than 50 feet away from Sargent’s 

vehicle when he initiated the traffic stop, and as a result, there was no probable cause for 

Trooper Lamm to conduct the stop. The court further determined there was no 

reasonable, articulable suspicion that any criminal activity had occurred, and therefore, 

the evidence discovered following the illegal stop and search must be suppressed. 

{¶13} The State filed a timely appeal and raises one assignment of error. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE 

FAILED TO PRESENT SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO 

DEMONSTRATE THAT TROOPER JOHN LAMM HAD A REASONABLE, 

ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO EFFECTUATE A TRAFFIC STOP OF 

DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE. 

{¶14} In its sole assignment of error, the State argues the trial court erred in 

granting Sargent’s motion to suppress. The State argues the trial court applied the wrong 

standard. In particular, the State alleges the trial court erred in determining that it had to 

demonstrate that Trooper Lamm had probable cause to effectuate the traffic stop of 

Sargent’s vehicle for the R.C. 4513.05(A) violation. The State further contends the trial 

court erred in determining that it failed to demonstrate that Trooper Lamm had a 

reasonable, articulable suspicion to effectuate the stop. Applying the reasonable 

suspicion standard, we find no merit to the State’s argument. 
 – 5 – 

Case No. 20 MA 0034

A motion to suppress presents mixed issues of law and fact. State v. Lake, 

151 Ohio App.3d 378, 2003-Ohio-332, 784 N.E.2d 162, ¶ 12 (7th Dist.), 

citing State v. Jedd, 146 Ohio App.3d 167, 171, 765 N.E.2d 880 (4th 

Dist.2001.) If a trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent 

credible evidence, an appellate court must accept them. Id. The court must 

then determine whether the trial court’s decision met the applicable legal 

standard. Id. 

There are two types of valid traffic stops: (1) where police 

have probable cause that a traffic violation has occurred or was occurring 

and (2) where police have reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal 

activity has occurred. State v. Ward, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 10 CO 28, 

2011-Ohio-3183, ¶ 35, citing Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 11, 665 

N.E.2d 1091 (1996); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 

889 (1968). 

State v. McMillon, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 18 CO 0016, 2019-Ohio-2716, ¶ 10-11. 

{¶15} The statute at issue, “Tail lights and illumination of rear license plate,” 

provides in part: 

Either a tail light or a separate light shall be so constructed and placed as 

to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate, when such 

registration plate is required, and render it legible from a distance of fifty 

feet to the rear. Any tail light, together with any separate light for illuminating 

the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the 

headlights or auxiliary driving lights are lighted, except where separate 

lighting systems are provided for trailers for the purpose of illuminating such 

registration plate. 

R.C. 4513.05(A). 

{¶16} This case involves a credibility issue. “‘[I]n a hearing on a motion to 

suppress evidence, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best 
 – 6 – 

Case No. 20 MA 0034

position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate the credibility of witnesses.’” State v. 

Martin, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 18 CO 0033, 2020-Ohio-3579, ¶ 45, quoting State v. 

Venham, 96 Ohio App.3d 649, 653, 645 N.E.2d 831 (4th Dist.1994). Although not 

specifically stated, it appears the trial court did not believe Trooper Lamm’s testimony on 

direct examination. Again, Trooper Lamm indicated that he twice determined that 

Sargent’s license plate light was not illuminated in a manner which would make it readable 

from 50 feet and he stopped Sargent’s vehicle due to the alleged traffic violation. 

(2/19/2020 Suppression Hearing T.p. 6-7).

{¶17} We stress that Trooper Lamm and Sargent were initially traveling in 

opposite directions. Trooper Lamm was traveling westbound on Mahoning Avenue while 

Sargent was traveling eastbound. (Id. at 6, 16). Thus, at that point, it would have been 

impossible for Trooper Lamm to see the back of Sargent’s vehicle. The dash cam video 

demonstrates that Trooper Lamm initiated his take-down lights almost immediately after 

turning onto Viall Road to follow Sargent’s vehicle. (State’s Exhibit 2). On crossexamination, Trooper Lamm agreed, and the video reveals, “that the distance between 

when [he] activated [his] lights and where Mr. Sargent’s vehicle was was [sic] certainly 

greater than 50 feet.” (Id. at 19; State’s Exhibit 2). Trooper Lamm admitted that he had 

no basis for the stop other than the alleged R.C. 4513.05(A) violation. (Id. at 19-20). 

However, based on the facts presented, there was no reason for Trooper Lamm to stop 

Sargent’s vehicle for an R.C. 4513.05(A) violation. Trooper Lamm was at the outset 

travelling in the opposite direction on Mahoning Avenue, and thereafter, certainly more 

than 50 feet away when he turned to follow Sargent and initiated his take-down lights on 

Viall Road. 

{¶18} The trial court also heard from Sargent. He testified that his leased vehicle 

was inspected prior to the traffic stop and, thus, was “surprised” when Trooper Lamm 

stopped him due to his rear license plate not being illuminated. (Id. at 32-34). After 

Sargent was released, he retrieved his vehicle and inspected the license plate lights. (Id. 

at 35). At that time, Sargent took a photo of his license plate showing both lights on and 

in working order. (Id.; Defendant’s Exhibit 1). Sargent testified on redirect examination 

that he was “positive” that he took the photograph of his license plate on the night at issue 

immediately after he was released and picked up his vehicle. (Id. at 44). 
 – 7 – 

Case No. 20 MA 0034

{¶19} Upon consideration, there was no credible evidence or testimony

establishing a traffic violation. The record fails to show that Sargent’s rear license plate 

was not illuminated and legible from a distance of 50 feet as required by R.C. 4513.05(A). 

There was no reasonable, articulable suspicion that any criminal activity had occurred to 

justify the stop. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting Sargent’s motion to suppress. 

CONCLUSION 

{¶20} For the foregoing reasons, the State’s sole assignment of error is not welltaken. The judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas granting Sargent’s 

motion to suppress following a hearing is affirmed. 

Donofrio, J., concurs. 

Waite, P.J., concurs. 
[Cite as State v. Sargent, 2020-Ohio-5464.]

 

 

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error 

is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed 

against the 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.