[Cite as State v. Lewis , 2019-Ohio-125.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO Appellant

v.

WILLIAM LEWIS Appellee C.A. No. 29046

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. 18 TRC 02815

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: January 16, 2019

SCHAFER, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals fro m the decision of the Akron Municipal Court, granting Appellee, William Lewis’, mo tion to suppress. This Court reverses.

I. {¶2} Early one evening, Trooper Michael Chia rappa saw a car traveling southbound on South Hawkins Avenue. The car was missing its front license plate and had heavily tinted windows, so the trooper executed a traffic stop. Wh en he approached the car and spoke with its driver, Lewis, the trooper detected a strong odo r of alcohol. He also made severa l additional

observations that led him to belie ve Lewis was driving under the influence. Consequently, he asked Lewis to perform field sobriety testing. Lewis complied, performed poorly on the tests, and refused to submit to a breathalyzer. Trooper Chiarappa then arrested Lewis. {¶3} Lewis was cited for operating a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and failing to display a front license plate. He then filed a motion to suppress on several2

grounds, including that Trooper Chiarappa lacked pr obable cause to arrest him. It was Lewis’ position that a light sensitivity condition and the side effects of a certa in medication he was taking explained the majority of the indicators that Trooper Chiara ppa claimed to have observed. It also was his position that the trooper failed to substantially comply w ith applicable testing guidelines when administering the field sobriety tests. {¶4} Following a suppression hearing, the tria l court granted the motion to suppress on the basis that Trooper Chiarappa lacked probabl e cause to arrest Lewi s. The State then immediately appealed from the trial court’s ruling. {¶5} The State’s appeal is now before this Cour t and raises one assignment of error for

our review.

II. Assignment of Error The trial court erred when it granted [Lewis’] Motion to Suppress. {¶6} In its sole assignment of error, the State argues that the trial court erred by granting Lewis’ motion to suppress because th e record reflects that Trooper Chiarappa had probable cause to arrest him. Upon review, we ar e unable to address the merits of the State’s

argument. {¶7} 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 the trial court considers a motion to suppress, it assumes the role of tr ier of fact and, therefore, it is 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.” Id. This Court must “then independently3

determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Id. {¶8} When a trial court rules on a motion to suppress and “fails to make adequate factual findings, this Court cannot determine the extent to which the facts in the record were considered by the trial court.” State v. Purefoy , 9th Dist. Summit No. 27992, 2017-Ohio-79, ¶ 18. The “absence of factual findings impedes ou r ability to review [the] suppression ruling” in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive in Burnside

. State v. Martucci , 9th Dist. Summit No. 28888, 2018-Ohio-3471, ¶ 11. Thus, in the absence of adequate factual findings, this Court has reversed suppression rulings a nd remanded matters for trial cour ts to make factual findings in

the first instance. See Purefoy at ¶ 18. Accord State v. Soto , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 16CA011024, 2017-Ohio-4348, ¶ 17-18. {¶9} As noted, the trial court granted Lewis’ motion to suppress upon its determination that Trooper Chiarappa lacked probable cause to arrest him. The court did not, however, issue any findings of fact, either in its written journal entry or orally on the record at the conclusion of the suppression hearing. “An officer has probabl e cause to arrest an individual for impaired driving if, ‘at the time of arrest, the officer had sufficient facts derived from a reasonably trustworthy source to cause a prudent person to believe the suspect was driving under the

influence.’” State v. Spees , 9th Dist. Medina No. 17CA0061-M, 2018-Ohio-2568, ¶ 30, quoting State v. Hopp , 9th Dist. Summit No. 28095, 2016-Ohio-8027, ¶ 8. This Court has recognized that a probable cause determination is a fact-intensive inquiry that “‘requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest.’” Spees at ¶ 30, quoting State v. Rogers , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 16AP0014, 2017-Ohio-357, ¶ 9. In the absence of any factual findings on the part of the trial cour t, this Court “cannot determine the extent to4

which [it considered] the facts in the record * * *.” Purefoy at ¶ 18. See also Burnside at ¶ 8 (instructing appellate courts to accept trial court’s factual findi ngs if supported by competent, credible evidence). Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court’s suppression ruling and remand this matter for it to make adequate factual findings in the first instance. See Purefoy at ¶ 18. The State’s sole assignment of e rror is sustained on that basis.

III. {¶10} The State’s sole assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Akron Municipal Court is reversed, and the cause is re manded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Akron Municipal Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent 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. 30.5

Costs taxed to Appellee.

JULIE A. SCHAFER FOR THE COURT

TEODOSIO, P. J. CALLAHAN, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES: EVE V. BELFANCE, Director of Law, and BRIAN D. BREMER, Assistant Director of Law, for Appellant. NICHOLAS J. CARDINAL, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.