[Cite as State v. Scranton, 2016-Ohio-3128.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsDEVIN SCRANTON 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P. J. 

Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

Case No. 2015 CA 00185 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Canton Municipal 

Court, Case Nos. 2015 CRB 3199 and 2015 

TRC 0516 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: May 23, 2016 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

JOSEPH MARTUCCIO JOHN BROOKS CAMERON 

CANTON LAW DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER JANKOWSKI 

TYRONE D. HAURITZ JOHN BROOKS CAMERON & ASSOC. 

CANTON CITY PROSECUTOR 247 East Smith Road 

KELLY PARKER Medina, Ohio 44256 

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 

218 Cleveland Avenue S.W. 

Post Office Box 24218 

Canton, Ohio 44701-4218 
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00185 2

Wise, J. 

{¶1} Appellant Devin Scranton appeals his conviction and sentence on one count 

of OVI, one count of Driving in Marked Lane, one count of No Seatbelt, one count of 

Attempting to Commit Possessing Drug Abuse Instruments and one count of Possession 

of Drug Paraphernalia, entered in the Canton Municipal Court following a plea of no 

contest. 

{¶2} Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 

{¶3} On July 14, 2015, Trooper Douglas R. Trotter of the Ohio State Highway 

Patrol received information from his dispatcher that a 911 caller was behind a possible 

OVI, drunk driver, reckless operation. (Supp. T. at 8-9). The vehicle was traveling on U.S. 

30 coming from the Wayne County line eastbound toward the Canton area. Id. The citizen 

caller provided a vehicle description and license plate number and gave updates as to 

the location of the vehicle. (Supp. T. at 9-10). Trooper Trotter waited stationary on I-77 

northbound for the vehicle to approach. (Supp. T. at 10). He observed Appellant's vehicle, 

a red Ford pickup truck, and began to follow. (Supp. T. at 10). He confirmed that the 

vehicle registration matched the information provided by the dispatcher. (Supp. T. at 10). 

As Trooper Trotter followed the vehicle, he observed the vehicle drive on the left berm 

twice, once nearly striking the center concrete wall dividing the northbound and 

southbound lanes. (Supp. T. at 11). Trooper Trotter initiated a traffic stop and made 

contact with the driver of the vehicle, identified as Appellant Devin Scranton. (Supp. T. at 

12). Trooper Trotter then approached Appellant's vehicle. It took Appellant a few moments 

to roll down the window. (Supp. T. at 13). During this time, Trooper Trotter observed that 
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00185 3

Appellant's eyes were wide and glassy. (Supp. T. at 13). Trooper Trotter asked Appellant 

to step out of the vehicle. (Supp. T. at 13). Once out of the vehicle, Trooper Trotter noticed 

that Appellant appeared nervous. (Supp. T. at 13). Appellant was then patted down and 

placed in the cruiser. (Supp. T. at 14). While Appellant was seated in the cruiser, Trooper 

Trotter noticed, prior to administering the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (HGN test), 

that Appellant’s pupils were very constricted. (Supp. T. at 14). He then performed the 

HGN test, which did not reveal any clues; however, Trooper Trotter was again able to 

observe that Appellant's eyes were wide open and glassy, and that his pupils were very 

constricted. (Supp. T. 15). 

{¶4} After the HGN test, Trooper Trotter asked Appellant to exit the cruiser so he 

could administer the Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand tests. (Supp. T. at 16). While 

administering the Walk and Turn test, Trooper Trotter observed two of eight clues. (Supp. 

T. at 17). During the instructional phase of the test, Appellant swayed and moved his feet. 

(Supp. T. at 17). While performing the test, he had to catch his balance once. (Supp. T. 

at 17). While administering the One Leg Stand test, Trooper Trotter observed three clues. 

(Supp. T. 19). 

{¶5} Trooper Trotter then placed Appellant under arrest. (Supp. Tr. 13). After the 

arrest, Appellant submitted two chemical tests: a breath test and a urine drug screen. 

(Supp. T. at 23-24). The breath test result was 0.00. (Supp. T. at 23). The urine drug 

screen showed Appellant had a concentration of marijuana metabolite of 55.29 ng/ml in 

his urine. (Supp. T. at 24). 

{¶6} Appellant was arrested and charged with two counts of Operating a Vehicle 

Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, one count of Driving in Marked Lanes, and one 
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00185 4

count of No Seatbelt. 

{¶7} Subsequent to Appellant’s arrest, officers conducted a search of Appellant’s 

vehicle which revealed what was believed to be drug paraphernalia. The State later 

brought charges against Appellant for one count of attempting to commit possessing drug 

abuse instruments and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia 

{¶8} On September 3, 2015, Appellant filed a motion to suppress. 

{¶9} On September 14, 2015, a hearing was held on the motion to suppress. At 

the hearing, the trial court heard testimony from Trooper Trotter as set forth above. The 

Impaired Driver Report, the video of the traffic stop, the BMV 2255 form, Crime lab report, 

and audio of a 911 call were admitted into evidence. (Supp. T. at 35). 

{¶10} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court orally stated its findings of 

facts and conclusions of law into the record, overruling Appellant's motion. 

{¶11} On September 24, 2015, Appellant entered a plea of no contest. Appellant 

was found guilty of one count of OVI, one count of Driving in Marked Lanes, and one 

count of No Seatbelt. 

{¶12} Appellant now appeals, raising the following errors for review: 

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 

{¶13} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT TROOPER TROTTER 

HAD PROBABLE CAUSE AND/ OR REASONABLE SUSPICION TO INITIATE THE 

TRAFFIC STOP. 

{¶14} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT TROOPER TROTTER 

WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL STOP TO AN OVI 

INVESTIGATION. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00185 5

{¶15} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PROBABLE CAUSE 

EXISTED TO EFFECTUATE THE ARREST.” 

I., II., III.

{¶16} In his First, Second and Third Assignments of Error, Appellant argues the 

trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress. We disagree. 

{¶17} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, 

Article I, Ohio Constitution, prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable 

searches and seizures of persons or their property. See Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 

1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87, 565 

N.E.2d 1271. 

{¶18} 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. When 

reviewing this third type of claim, an appellate court must independently determine, 

without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate 

legal standard in the given case. 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. However, as the United States 

Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 

L.Ed.2d 911, “... as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable 

cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal.” 
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00185 6

{¶19} In the case sub judice, Appellant herein argues that Trooper Trotter lacked 

reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop him or to request the performance of field 

sobriety tests. Appellant also contends that there was not probable cause to arrest him. 

Traffic Stop 

{¶20} There are two standards applied to determine whether police have 

legitimately stopped a vehicle. State v. Weinheimer, Warren App. No. CA2003–04–044, 

2004–Ohio–801, ¶ 8. First, police may make an investigatory stop of a vehicle when they 

have a “reasonable articulable suspicion” criminal activity has occurred or is occurring, 

and the officer seeks to confirm or refute this suspicion of criminal activity. Id.

{¶21} Second, police may stop a vehicle based on “probable cause” a traffic 

violation, even minor, has occurred or is occurring. Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 

11–12, 665 N.E.2d 1091, 1996–Ohio–431. Such is the case when an officer witnesses a 

traffic violation and then stops the motorist for this traffic violation. 

{¶22} In the instant case, we find Trooper Trotter had legal authority to stop 

Appellant's vehicle. Trooper Trotter testified that in addition to receiving a citizen tip 

regarding a possible impaired driver, he observed Appellant cross the far left white line 

twice, once almost hitting the concrete median barrier. 

Field Sobriety Tests 

{¶23} “Requiring a driver to submit to a field sobriety test constitutes a seizure 

within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Courts have generally held that the 

intrusion on the driver's liberty resulting from a field sobriety test is minor, and the officer 

therefore need only have reasonable suspicion that the driver is under the influence of 

alcohol in order to conduct a field sobriety test.” State v. Bright, 5th Dist. Guernsey No. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00185 7

2009–CA–28, 2010–Ohio–1111, ¶ 17, citing State v. Knox, 2nd Dist. Greene No. 2005–

CA–74, 2006–Ohio–3039. 

{¶24} In reviewing this issue, we apply a “totality of the circumstances” approach. 

See, e.g., City of Fairfield v. Lucking, Butler App. No. CA2002–12–303, 2004–Ohio–90, 

¶ 8, citing State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 414 N.E.2d 1044. 

{¶25} In support of his position, Appellant cites Whitehouse v. Stricklin, 6th Dist. 

Lucas County App. L-10-1277, 2012-Ohio-1877. We find the case sub judice to be 

distinguishable from Stricklin. In Stricklin, unlike the present case, the driver was stopped 

for a de minimus traffic violation; he had not demonstrated any erratic driving or exhibited 

any other behaviors which would indicate that he was impaired. 

{¶26} In the instant case, as set forth in our recitation of facts, Trooper Trotter 

stopped Appellant for moving violations. He testified that he received a call from dispatch 

that a citizen had called in to report a possible impaired driver, and that Appellant’s vehicle 

matched the description and registration. He further testified that he personally observed 

Appellant travel left of the left berm twice, once almost hitting the concrete divider. 

Additionally, upon stopping Appellant, he observed that his eyes were unusually wideopen and glassy. Appellant was also acting nervous. Once inside the Trooper’s vehicle, 

Trooper Trotter notice that Appellant’s pupils were very constricted. 

{¶27} Upon review, based on the above factors, we hold a reasonable basis 

existed for Trooper Trotter to ask Appellant to proceed with field sobriety testing under 

the circumstances of this case. 
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00185 8

Arrest 

{¶28} We further find, based on the foregoing, that probable cause existed for the 

arrest. 

{¶29} “The standard for determining whether the police have probable cause to 

arrest an individual for OVI is whether, at the moment of arrest, the police had sufficient 

information, derived from a reasonable trustworthy source of facts and circumstances to 

cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence.” State 

v. Swope, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 08 CA 50, 2009–Ohio–3849, ¶ 22. 

{¶30} The issue is whether Appellant's actions and Trooper Trotter’s observations 

lead to probable cause to arrest. We note each case is determined individually from the 

facts and observations presented. 

{¶31} Here, based on the totality of the circumstances, including Trooper Trotter’s 

observations as set forth above and Appellant's poor performance on the field sobriety 

tests, with the exception of the HGN test, we find that probable cause existed to arrest 

Appellant. 

{¶32} We therefore hold the trial court did not err in denying the motion to 

suppress in this matter. Accordingly, Appellant's Assignments of Error are overruled. 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2015 CA 00185 9

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

Municipal Court, Stark County, Ohio, is affirmed. 

By: Wise, J. 

Farmer, P. J., and 

Baldwin, J., concur. 

JWW/d 0511