[Cite as State v. Levine , 2019-Ohio-265.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : Case No. 18CA19

vs. : EVAN M. LEVINE, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant-Appellee. :

_________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: Paul G. Bertram, III, Marietta City Law Director and Daniel Evers on, Assistant Law Director, Marietta, Ohio, for appellant. April F. Campbell, Dublin, Ohio for appellee.

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL COURT DATE JOURNALIZED:1-22-19 ABELE, P.J. {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Marietta Municipal Court judgment that granted a motion to suppress evidence filed by Evan Levine, defenda nt below and appellee he rein. Appellant, the State of Ohio, assigns three errors for review:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING IT WAS ILLEGAL TO STOP DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT DEFENDANT TURNED INTO TWO EASTBOUND LANES RATHER THAN INTO ONE LANE;”

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:[Cite as State v. Levine , 2019-Ohio-265.] “WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING IT WAS ILLEGAL TO STOP DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE FOR A STOPPING VIOLATION UNDER R.C. 4511.33 WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FOUND DEFENDANT [SIC] VEHICLE STOPPED SO AS TO STRADDLE THE STOP BAR (RATHER THAN STOPPING BEHIND THE STOP BAR); AND”

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS OF THE TROOPER’S BELIEF THAT THER E WAS PROBABLE CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR THE STOP.” {¶ 2} Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Jord an Hutton stopped the appellee on March 2, 2018 and charged him with (1) driving under th e influence (DUI) in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), (2) DUI in violation of R.C. 4511.19( A)(1)(h), (3) traffic signals/red light in violation of R.C. 4511.13©, and (4) failure to drive in marked la nes in violation of R.C. 4511.33. Appellee filed a motion to suppress the evidence and asserted, inter alia, that the officer lacked a reasonable suspicion or proper justification to make the i nvestigative traffic stop. {¶ 3} At the suppression hearing, Trooper Hu tton testified that on March 2, 2018 at approximately 2:00 a.m., he obser ved a vehicle turn east from Sec ond Street to Putnam Street, a 4-lane street. Hutton noted that the vehicle immediately turned to the outside lane, the farthest lane from the curb, instead of the closest lane. Hutton th en followed the vehicle. Hutton stated that he then noticed the vehicle move to the right lane and approach the flashing red light at the Third Street intersection. Hutton explained, “I noticed the vehicle did stop at th e white stop bar but his front tire stopped beyond that. * * * his front tires stopped be yond the clearly marked white stop line, right prior to the crosswalk at the flashing red light.” Hutton testified that after the vehicle turned south on Third Street, he activated his lights, and the vehicle then “missed the entry to the left turn lane,WASHINGTON, 18CA19 3 turned left, crossed the white turn lane marker lin e and then proceeded on to Butler Street, where he slowed and came to a complete stop.” Hutton tes tified that when the a ppellee attempted to hand over his license, he missed his hand. Hutton also noticed a strong odor of alcohol, that appellee exhibited “extremely bloodshot and glassy” eyes, sl urred speech and he that he appeared to be

flushed and disheveled. After th e appellee exited his vehicle, Hu tton asked where he came from and

he indicated a bar on Second Street. {¶ 4} Trooper Hutton testified that he advised the appellee of his Miranda rights and when he asked how many drinks he had c onsumed, he avoided the question and became emotional, but later stated that he had two or three beers. Hutton then asked the appellee to rate his impairment on a scale of one to ten, and he rated himself a three. Hutton also testified that when he asked the appellee to recite the alphabet from G to X, appellee failed in two attempts. {¶ 5} Trooper Hutton testified that af ter the appellee agreed to participate in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) field sobriety testing battery: (1) he detected six of six possible clues on the horizontal nystagmus test a nd two of two on the vertical nystagmus test; (2) appellee started the walk and turn test prior to the completion of the instructions, raised his arms above six inches while walking and did not touch heel to toe, turned incorrectly and indicated six of a possible eight clues, and (3) appellee swayed during the one leg stand while in the counting position and raised his arm appr oximately six inches. {¶ 6} Trooper Hutton then arrested the appellee and his breath sample tested at .176 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of his breath. However, after the trial court heard testimony and viewed the dash camera video, the court granted the motion to suppress evidence. This appeal followed. {¶ 7} In the case sub judice, the appellant asserts that the trial court improperly granted theWASHINGTON, 18CA19 4 appellee’s motion to suppress evid ence. “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Codeluppi , 139 Ohio St.3d 165, 2014-Ohio-1574, 10 N.E.3d 691, ¶ 7; State v. Davis , 2016-Ohio-3539, 67 N.E.2d 22, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.). “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.” State v.

Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. Therefore, when reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we de fer to the trial court’s findings of fact “if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.” Id. “‘Accepting these facts as 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.’” Codeluppi at ¶ 7, quoting Burnside at ¶ 8. We review the application of the law to the facts de novo. Burnside at ¶ 8. {¶ 8} In determining whether the trial court erred by gran ting the motion to suppress evidence, we must consider the reasonableness of the traffic stop. “The Fourth Amendment to the

United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitu tion, Article I, Secti on 14 prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures,” State v. Emerson , 134 Ohio St.3d 191, 2012-Ohio-5047, 981 N.E.2d 787, ¶ 15, and evidence obtained from an unreasonable s earch and seizure should be excluded from consideration. This court recently held “[t]o justify a traffic stop based upon reasonable suspicion, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the driver has committed, or is committing, a crime, including a minor traffic

violation. State v. Hudson , 4th Dist. Gallia No. 17CA19, 2018-Ohio-2717, ¶ 15, quoting State v. Taylor , 2016-Ohio-1231, 62 N.E.3d 591, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.) The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on whether an objectively reasonable police officer would be lieve that the driver’s conductWASHINGTON, 18CA19 5

constituted a traffic violation base d on the totality of the circumstan ces known to the officer at the time of the stop. Id. Finally, it is important to point out th at an officer may stop a vehicle after observing even a de minimis violation of traffic laws. See State v. Williams , 4th Dist. Ross No. 14CA36, 2014-Ohio-4897, ¶ 9, citing Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), and Dayton v. Erickson , 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (1996), syllabus. {¶ 9} In case sub judice, the trial court made, inter alia, the following findings of fact: “The officer stopped the Defendant for the following reasons: 1. Wide turn from north bound Second

Street to eastbound on Putnam Street. The Court has reviewed the video submitted into evidence

several times and conc ludes that Defendant did turn partly in both eastbound lanes. 2. Stopping past the stop bar at the flashing light on Putnam at Third. Defendant used a right turn signal and clearly established a stop for the superior road of about seven seconds. De fendant’s car straddled the stop bar.” However, notwithst anding these factual findings that indicated violations of R.C. 4511.33 and R.C. 4511.13(C), the court held that neither violation creat ed any justification for the stop of the appellee’s vehicle. The court held: “The Court declines to lump together several

observations to conclude th at multiple hunches that are well-founded ultimately, create a constitutional, Terry-type stop of Defendant’s vehicle.” As an aside, the court went on to find that the officer was justified in expanding his stop “[b]as ed on the results of the field tests as found by the Court, the Officer had probable cau se to believe the De fendant was impaired by alcohol at the time he operated his vehicle.” After the court examined each field sobriety test, which the court noted were performed in substantial compliance with NHRSA standards, the court determined the traffic stop to be improper and granted the motion to suppr ess evidence. The appellant timely appealed the judgment.WASHINGTON, 18CA19 6

I. {¶ 10} In its first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by determining that the officer did not have justification to make the traffic stop. At the hearing, Trooper Hutton testified that he observed the appellee swing wide when he turned from Second

Street to Putnam Street and into the far lane rather than the nearest lane. {¶ 11} R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) requires driver s traveling on two or more lane roads to drive “as nearly as practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of tra ffic.” R.C. 4511.36 provides instruction about how a right hand turn should be co mpleted: “The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall be governed by the following rules: Approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to th e right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” R.C. 4511.36(A)(1). Reading the statut es in pari materia (R.C. 4511.36(A)(1)) and (R.C. 4511.33)), we conclude that a right hand turn in to two neighboring lanes of travel, even when the two lanes run in the same direction, constitutes a marked lanes violation. {¶ 12} The Supreme Court of Ohio has determined that a stop of a vehicle, when an officer has reasonably concluded that a marked lanes violation has occu rred, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. “[W]hen an officer could reasonabl y conclude from a person’ s driving outside the marked lanes that the person is viol ating a traffic law, the officer is justified in stopping the vehicle.”

State v. Mays , 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-4539, 894 N.E.2d 1204, ¶ 20. Further, as we

concluded in Hudson , ¶ 18, “[a] traffic stop is constitutionally valid when a law-enforcement officer

witnesses a motorist drift over th e lane markings in violation of R.C. 4511.33, even without further evidence of erratic or unsafe driving.” Hudson, citing Mays , supra, at syllabus. This court has held that “[t]he significance of Erickson and Whren lies in their holding that even a de minimis violationWASHINGTON, 18CA19 7 of the law provides a basis for a seizure by law en forcement officials. * * * The implication of these decisions is that if a motorist is violating a traffic law, even in a minor aspect, * * * an officer is justified in making the stop. * * * Certainly, ev en a momentary ‘bobble’ could give rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion, if not probable cause, to believe R.C. 4511.33 had been violated in light of the holding and rationale in Erickson and Whren .” Hudson at ¶ 12-16. As the appellant points out, the principle that ev en a momentary “bobble” from drivin g within marked lanes creates probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a st op on a “marked lanes” R.C. 4511.33 violation has

been affirmed in later decisions. See State v. Matzinger , 4th Dist. Washington No. 16CA4, 2017-Ohio-324, 81 N.E.3d 841 (traffic stop complies w ith the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement if officer possesses pr obable cause or reasonable suspic ion to believe that a driver committed marked lanes violation); State v. Lemaster , 4th Dist. Ross No. 11CA3236, 2012-Ohio-971, ¶ 12-13 (trooper’s tes timony supported marked lanes violation despite the fact violation was not caught on video; theref ore trooper had probable cause to stop); State v. Harlow , 4th Dist. Washington No. 13CA29, 2014-Ohio-864, ¶ 14 (tri al court justified in relying on trooper’s testimony and DVD to conclude th at the trooper had reasonable artic ulable suspicion [and probable cause] to believe Harlow had failed to drive within the marked lanes making the stop satisfy the Fourth Amendment); State v. Gunther , 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 04C A25, 2005-Ohio-3492, ¶ 19 (trial court reasonably concluded officer had probable cause to stop defendant for marked lanes violation;

and State v. Tarlton , 4th Dist. Pike No. 02CA688, 2002-Oh io-5795, ¶ 11 (even the slightest departure from the marked lane of travel on a hi ghway results in a technical violation of R.C. 4511.33; thus officer justified in making a traffic st op even if the violation is characterized as de minimis).WASHINGTON, 18CA19 8

{¶ 13} The Ninth District considered a similar case in which the defendant “executed a wide right-hand turn. That is, rather than pull into the right-hand lane of East Avenue when she turned right, Ms. Graham immediately turned into its left, inside lane.” State v. Graham, 2014-Ohio-3283, 17 N.E.3d 112 at ¶ 4 (9th Dist.). The court analyz ed the situation: “The question, however, was not whether Ms. Graham had actually violated the statute. It was whether Trooper Jackson had reasonable suspicion to believe th at a violation had occurred.” Id. at ¶ 24. Thus, the Ninth District reversed the trial court’s grantin g of the motion to suppress evidence to the extent that the court found the trooper lacked a reasonabl e suspicion to stop the car. Id. at ¶ 27. {¶ 14} In the case sub judice, after our review of the evidence and pertinent authority, we believe that the trial court improperly concluded th at the appellee’s marked lanes violation did not provide reasonable justification for the traffic stop. We furthe r believe that our decision is consistent with this district’s jurisprudence, as we ll as our sister districts, the Supreme Court of Ohio and the United States Supreme Court. {¶ 15} Consequently, based upon the foregoing r easons, we sustain appellant’s first assignment of error.

II. {¶ 16} In its second assignment of error, the appe llant asserts that the trial court erred by determining that the appellee’s failing to stop at a stop line does not constitute a justifiable basis for a traffic stop. {¶ 17} At the suppression hearing, Trooper Hutton tes tified that he observe d the appellee fail to obey a flashing red signal. R.C. 4511.13(F)(1) provides in relevant part:WASHINGTON, 18CA19 9 Highway traffic signal indi cations for vehicles and pe destrians shall have the following meanings: * * * Vehicular traffic, on an approach to an intersection, facing a flashing circular red signal indication, shall stop at a clear ly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the cro sswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection. The right to proceed sha ll be subject to the provisions that are applicable after making a stop at a stop sign. {¶ 18} As the appellant points out, a flashing re d light operates as a stop sign, and it is unsurprising that the R.C. 4511.13(F)(1) language closely resembles the R.C. 4511.43(A) language applicable to stop signs: Except when directed to proceed by a la w enforcement officer, every driver of a vehicle * * * approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop sign, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the n ear side of the inte rsection, or, if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where th driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it. After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. {¶ 19} This court has addr essed the issue of a failure to stop at a stop line in State v. Hudson , supra , 2018-Ohio-2717. In Hudson , the defendant committed several traffic violations, including the failure to stop at a stop bar. Hudson stopped beyond another vehicle st opped at a stop sign, but traveled through the intersection without stopping at the stop line. We held: “Hudson did not stop at the stop line near the stop sign, but instead rolled through it while turning right.” Id. at ¶ 9. Thus, these facts created reasonable suspicion or proba ble cause that the defendant failed to stop in compliance with R.C. 4511.43(A). 1

1 After oral argument in the the case at bar, the appellant filed additional authority. In State v. Sider , Marietta M.C. No. 2018 TR 2412 (July 13, 2018), the trial court found that when the defendant stopped in the turn lane at an intersection with the back tires of his vehicle on the stop line and one half to three-fourths of his vehicle over the line, the failure to stop befo re the clearly markedWASHINGTON, 18CA19 10

stop line constituted probable cause for a traffic stop. In State v. Strahler , Marietta M.C. No. 2018 TR 1589 (May 28, 2018), the court determined that an intersection that did not have flashing ligh ts, but continued to operate at green, yellow, then red light, g ave the defendant the duty to stop behind the stop bar until the light turned green. Finally, in State v. Miller , Marietta M.C. No. 2018 TRC 5789 (Oct. 29, 2018) the defendant stopped at a red light with fron t tires beyond the stop bar and the court, citing Strahler, concluded that probable cause existed for the traffic stop. However, the Miller court distinguished its decision in this case and noted that Levine “involved a traffic light that had changed to flashing “red” late at night and functioned as the equivalent of a stop sign rather than a traffic light th at cycled through green-yellow-red. * * * [T]he driver must proceed to the point at which he has a view of approaching traffic on the intersectin g road so that a turn can be made with safety. The drivers in Miller and Strahler faced a steady red signal and the cour t distinguished that the duty to stop has nothing to do with viewing the approach ing traffic on the intersecting road (RC 4511.13(F)(1)) before moving into the inter section. As such, there is nothing to excuse driver ‘creep’ beyond the stop line as there was in Weihl and Levine.”[Cite as State v. Levine , 2019-Ohio-265.] {¶ 20} The Third District, in a very instructive decision, examined the phrase “at a clearly marked stop line” with respect to a R.C. 4511.43(A) (s top sign) violation, and concluded that it must be interpreted to mean “before” rather than “on” that line. In State v. Miller, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-14-50, 2015-Ohio-3529, ¶ 24, an officer charged a driv er with failing to stop at a clearly marked stop sign and the trial court grante d a motion to suppress evidence. The Third District reversed the judgment and cited the rules of st atutory construction when a statut e is ambiguous. The court held

that the Revised Code does not defi ne “at” or what it means to stop at a clearly marked stop line.

Id. at ¶ 16. The court noted th at the Supreme Court of Ohio has not addressed the proper interpretation of R.C. 4511.43(A) , or what it means to stop at a clearly marked stop sign, that Black’s Law Dictionary does not define “at,” and Merriam -Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defined

“at” as “used as a function word to indicate presence or occurrence, in, on, or near.” Miller at ¶ 17. The court concluded that the R.C. 4511.43( A) requirement that a motorist stop at a clearly marked stop sign is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. Th e court then conducted a thorough analysis of the divided courts on this issue: In interpreting nearly identical stop-sign stat utes, some courts have concluded that so long as a driver stops on or near a clearly marked stop line, he or she is in compliance with the statute. See, e.g., State v. Drushal , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 13CA0028, 2014-Ohio-3088, ¶ 12, 2014 WL 344101, abrogated on other grounds by Heien v. North Carolina , __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014); City of Olathe v. McGregor , Ks.App. No. 108, 316, 2013 WL 5870040, *3 (Oct. 25, 2013); Mumper v. State , Tx.App. No. 05-08-00141-CR, 2009 WL 201142, *2 (Jan. 29, 2009). Other courts have conc luded that a driver must stop before any part of his or her vehicle crosses a clearly marked stop line. See e.g., People v. Wood , 379 Ill.App.3d 705, 708-709, 318 Ill.Dec. 389, 883 N.E.2d 620 (2008); U.S. v. Mack , D.Vt. No. 5:14-cr-28, 2014 WL 7140604, *8, fn. 6 (Dec. 12, 2014); U.S. v. Smith , M.D.Fla. No. 2:06-cr-42-FtM-29SPC, 2006 WL 2226313, *7 (Aug. 3, 2006); State v. Daniels , 158 So.3d 629, 630-631 (Fla.2014); People v. Binkowski , 68 Cal.Reptr.3d 741, 157 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 6 (2007); State v. Denner , 298 Wis.2d 249, 726 N.W.2d 357, paragraph 7, fn. 2 (2006).

Miller , supra , at ¶ 18. The Third District went on to hold, “[w]e conclude that the GeneralWASHINGTON, 18CA19 12 Assembly did not contemplate that stopping astrid e - where any portion of a vehicle extends across - a clearly marked stop line would constitute co mpliance with R.C. 4511.43(A) and hold that a motorist must stop his or her vehi cle before the front-most portion of the vehicle breaks the plane of the outermost edge of a clearly marked stop line. In other words, to comply with the statute, a motorist must stop his or her vehi cle before any portion of his or he r vehicle crosses the edge of the stop line that is furthest from the front-most portion of his or her approaching vehicle.” Id. at ¶ 20. The court pointed out that the consequences of interpreting “at” to permit a motorist to stop on or near a clearly marked stop line would not readily further any legislative purpose because (1) it would establish a range of stopping point as opposed to a definite stopping point, (2) it would not promote highway safety of motorists and pedestrians, and (3) it would comply with administrative

constructions of the statute via the Ohio Manua l of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD), which provides the official speci fications for highway signs and markings as mandated by R.C.

4511.09. Id. at ¶ 21-23. We agree with the Third Distri ct’s well-reasoned analys is with respect to

R.C. 4511.13 violations. 2 {¶ 21} Additionally, in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC., Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), the court gives guidance concerni ng statutory interpretation. “First, always, is the question whether [the legislature] is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously ex pressed intent [of the legislature]. If, however, the court determines [the legislat ure] has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the

2 Appellant also raises the issue of a large vehicle, such as a sc hool bus or tractor trailer, that could come to a complete stop with its front-end well into an intersection and past the pedestrian crosswalk, while a portion of the vehicle may nevertheless be stopp ed “at” (if construed as straddling) the stop line. As the appellant indicates, this interpretati on could lead to absurd and unsafe result s.WASHINGTON, 18CA19 13 court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpre tation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible constructi on of the statute.” Chevron at 842-43. {¶ 22} In Ohio, the agency charged with implementing traffic law is the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). To the extent that ODOT has administratively a dopted a construction of Ohio’s stopping statutes, as detaile d in the OMUTCD included in the Miller decision, we also acknowledge that ODOT’s construction of the meaning of the statute should r eceive deference as per

Chevron

. {¶ 23} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons , we hold that the st atutory requirement to stop “at a clearly marked stop line” requires a driver to come to a complete stop before the vehicle comes into contact with the stop line. In the case at bar, because the tria l court found that “[t]he Defendant’s car straddled the stop bar” during its stop at the flashi ng red light, we conclude that appellant’s second assignment of error is well taken.

III. {¶ 24} In its third assignment of error, the appellant asserts that the proper determination of a suppression issue related to a tra ffic stop requires a court to look at whether an officer’s belief is objectively reasonable under the ci rcumstances. In examining th e officer’s actions, the United States Supreme Court has gi ven us this instruction: We have repeatedly affirmed, “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness.’” Riley v. California , 573 U.S. ––––, ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (some internal quotation marks omitted). To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Ame ndment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection.” Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S.Ct.WASHINGTON, 18CA19 14 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949). We have recognized that searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact can be reasonable. The wa rrantless search of a home, for instance, is reasonable if undertaken with the consent of a resident, and re mains lawful when officers obtain the consent of someone who reas onably appears to be but is not in fact a resident. See Illinois v. Rodriguez , 497 U.S. 177, 183–186, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990). By the same token, if o fficers with probable cause to arrest a suspect mistakenly arrest an individual matching the suspect 's description, neither the seizure nor an accompanying search of the arrestee would be unlawful. See Hill v. California , 401 U.S. 797, 802–805, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971). The limit is that “the mistakes must be those of reasonable men.” Brinegar, supra , at 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302.

But reasonable men make mis takes of law, too, and such mistakes are no less compatible with the concept of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer's understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reas onably mistaken on either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the result is the same: the facts are outside the scope of the law. There is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Ame ndment or our precedents, why this same result should be acceptable when reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when reached by way of a s imilarly reasonable mis take of law.

Heien v. North Carolina , U.S. , 135 S.Ct. 530, 536, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014) {¶ 25} Thus, the question whether a traffic stop viol ates the Fourth Amendment * * * requires an objective assessment of a police officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances. Bowling Green v. Godwin, 110 Ohio St.3d 58, 2006-Ohio-3563, 850 N.E.2d 698, at ¶ 14. “The existence of probable cause [or reasonable suspicion] depends on whether an objectively reasonable police officer would believe that [the driver’s ] conduct * * * constituted a traffic violation, based on the totality of

the circumstances known to the offi cer at the time of the stop.” Id. at ¶ 16. This court has determined that a traffic stop complies with the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement if an officer possesses probable cause or a reasonable suspicion to believe that a driver committed a

violation. See State v. Crocker , 2015-Ohio-2528, 38 N.E.3d 359, ¶ 62 (4th Dist.); State v. Littlefield, 4th Dist. Ross No. 11CA3247, 2013-Ohio-481, ¶ 15; State v. Matzinger , 2017-Ohio-324, 81 N.E.3dWASHINGTON, 18CA19 15 841, ¶31-33 (4th Dist.). In the case sub judice, the officer obser ved what he believed to be a marked lanes violation and a stopping violation. We find not hing in the record to support a conclusion that these perceptions were unreasonable. Based on Tr ooper Hutton’s testimony, we conclude that he possessed a reasonable articulable suspicion to believe that the appellee committed the traffic violations in question. {¶ 26} Thus, based upon the reasons set forth a bove, we hereby su stain appellant’s assignments of error, reverse the trial court’s judg ment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the judgment be reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Appellee shall pay the costs herein taxed.

The Court finds there were reas onable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Marietta Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. McFarland, J.: Concurs in Judgment & Op inion as to Assignments of Error I & III; Concurs in Judgment Only as to Assignment of Error IIWASHINGTON, 18CA19 16 Hoover, J.: Dissents

For the Court

BY: Peter B. Abele, Presiding Judge

NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgme nt entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.