[Cite as State v. Spurlock, 2013-Ohio-5369.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN ) 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Appellee 

 v. 

RUBIN E. SPURLOCK JR. 

 Appellant 

C.A. No. 13CA010354 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT 

ENTERED IN THE 

ELYRIA MUNICIPAL COURT 

COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO 

CASE No. 2012TRC05785 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: December 9, 2013 

 

HENSAL, Judge. 

{¶1} Rubin Spurlock appeals a judgment of the Elyria Municipal Court that convicted 

him of driving under the influence. For the following reasons, this Court affirms in part and 

reverses in part. 

I. 

{¶2} According to state highway trooper Bryan Holden, he was on patrol on July 13, 

2012, around 1:45 a.m. when he saw a car following too closely behind a semi-truck. As he 

followed behind the car, it moved from the right lane to the center lane without a turn signal and, 

after passing the semi, moved back to the right lane without a turn signal. After Trooper Holden 

saw the car also make a marked lanes violation, he initiated a traffic stop. 

{¶3} Trooper Holden testified that he approached the car on the passenger side and 

immediately noticed a strong odor of alcohol when the passenger opened the window. Because 

he could not tell whether the odor was coming from the driver, Mr. Spurlock, or the passenger, 
2 

 

he asked Mr. Spurlock to step out of the car. He isolated Mr. Spurlock on the side of the road 

and still noticed a moderate odor of alcohol, so he began administering field sobriety tests. He 

testified that he saw six clues during the horizontal-gaze nystagmus test, six clues during the 

walk-and-turn test, and three clues during the one-leg-stand test. The results indicated to him 

that Mr. Spurlock was inebriated. After finishing the tests, he asked Mr. Spurlock if he would 

take a portable breath test, but Mr. Spurlock refused. Based on his observations during the stop, 

Trooper Holden arrested Mr. Spurlock for operating under the influence and refusing to submit 

to the portable breath test. He also cited him for failing to signal turns. 

{¶4} Mr. Spurlock moved to suppress the results of the sobriety tests, any statements 

that he made to law enforcement officers, and Trooper Holden’s observations about him during 

the stop. He argued that the trooper did not have a legitimate reason to detain him, did not have 

probable cause to arrest him, and that his statements were obtained in violation of his 

constitutional rights. Following a hearing on his motion, the municipal court denied it. Mr. 

Spurlock subsequently pleaded no contest to a charge of driving under the influence under the 

Elyria municipal code. The court sentenced him to 37 days in jail, which it suspended, and 

dismissed the other charges. Mr. Spurlock has appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, 

assigning two errors. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I 

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS 

IMPROPER AS THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR OVI WAS NOT 

SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE AND IN VIOLATION OF THE 

FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE STATE OF OHIO. 
3 

 

{¶5} Mr. Spurlock argues that the municipal court incorrectly denied his motion to 

suppress. A motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact: 

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. Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial 

court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. 

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. 

 

(Internal citations omitted.) State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. 

{¶6} Mr. Spurlock argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to 

suppress because Trooper Holden did not have probable cause to arrest him. To determine 

whether a police officer had probable cause to arrest an individual for operating under the 

influence, we consider whether, under the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 

arrest at the moment of arrest, the officer “had sufficient information, derived from a reasonably 

trustworthy source of facts and circumstances, sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that 

the suspect was driving under the influence.” State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427 (2000), 

superceded on other grounds by statute as recognized in State v., Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79, 

2004-Ohio-37. 

{¶7} Trooper Holden testified that he stopped Mr. Spurlock because he observed him 

changing lanes without using a turn signal and committing a marked lanes violation. When he 

approached the car, he immediately detected a strong odor of alcohol, so he separated the driver 

and passenger to determine the source of the smell. He testified that Mr. Spurlock smelled 

moderately of alcohol, so he conducted field sobriety tests. During the horizontal-gaze 

nystagmus test, he observed that Mr. Spurlock’s eyes were bloodshot. During the walk-and-turn 

test, Mr. Spurlock failed to follow his directions and “almost walked into traffic.” During the 
4 

 

one-leg-stand test, Mr. Spurlock dropped his foot after only 20 seconds. He also swayed back 

and forth and had to throw his arms up to catch himself. 

{¶8} Mr. Spurlock argues that the field sobriety tests were not done in substantial 

compliance with national standards so the fact that he “fail[ed]” the tests is of questionable value. 

In Homan, however, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that “[t]he totality of the facts and 

circumstances can support a finding of probable cause to arrest even where no field sobriety tests 

were administered or where * * * the test results must be excluded for lack of * * * compliance.” 

Homan, 89 Ohio St. 3d at 427. In this case, in addition to Trooper Holden’s testimony, the court 

had the opportunity to view a video of the traffic stop. That video, however, has not been made 

part of the appellate record. “[I]t is the duty of the appellant to ensure that the record on appeal 

is complete.” State v. Unik, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 11CA009996, 2012-Ohio-307, ¶ 7, quoting 

State v. Daniels, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 08CA009488, 2009-Ohio-1712, ¶ 22. Without a copy of 

the video, we “must presume regularity of the proceedings and affirm the decision of the trial 

court.” State v. Jones, 9th Dist. Summit. No. 22701, 2006-Ohio-2278, ¶ 39. Mr. Spurlock’s first 

assignment of error is overruled. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II 

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS 

IMPROPER AS THE TRIAL COURT’S DETERMINATION THAT ALL 

TESTS WERE DONE FOR THE DETECTION OF OVI WERE DONE IN 

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH RULES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY 

EVIDENCE OF ANY ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS OR RULES; THAT 

BEING NEITHER PROFERRED BY THE STATE NOR TAKEN BY 

JUDICIAL NOTICE. 

{¶9} Mr. Spurlock argues that the trial court should have at least suppressed the results 

of the field sobriety tests because there is no evidence that they were performed in compliance 
5 

 

with national standards. Under Revised Code Section 4511.19(D)(4)(b), an officer may testify 

concerning the results of a field sobriety test only if: 

[I]t is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the 

test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible, 

and generally accepted field sobriety tests that were in effect at the time the tests 

were administered, including, but not limited to, any testing standards then in 

effect that were set by the national highway traffic safety administration[.] 

{¶10} In State v. Sunday, 9th Dist. Summit No. 22917, 2006-Ohio-2984, this Court 

determined that, under Section 4511.19(D)(4)(b), the State has the burden of establishing 

substantial compliance. Id. at ¶ 21. In that case, the police officer who stopped Edmund Sunday 

testified that he was certified to perform breathalyzer tests and to conduct field sobriety tests, but 

he did not testify that he performed any of the tests he administered in substantial compliance 

with standardized testing procedures. Id. at ¶ 22. Although he testified that he conducted the 

tests in accordance with his training, he did not testify about what guidelines he used or whether 

the tests conformed to any standardized testing procedure. Id. On cross-examination, he 

admitted that he could not recall whether his training utilized National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) standards. Id. at ¶ 23. At no point during his testimony, did he testify 

that he had substantially complied with any specific guidelines. The State also failed to admit 

the NHTSA manual. Id. at ¶ 24. This Court, therefore, concluded that the results of the tests 

should be suppressed. Id. at ¶ 24-25. 

{¶11} Trooper Holden testified that he was trained “according to the NHTSA manual.” 

He also testified that he conducted the horizontal-gaze nystagmus test “the way I was instructed 

to do it officer safety-wise * * *.” He did not otherwise testify that he performed any of the field 

sobriety tests in accordance with the way he had been trained, in accordance with the NHTSA 

manual, or in accordance with some other standardized testing procedure. The State also did not 
6 

 

submit a NHTSA or other standardized testing procedure manual. Accordingly, upon review of 

the record, we conclude that there was no competent, credible evidence to support the municipal 

court’s finding that “[a]ll tests done for detection of OVI were done in substantial compliance 

with rules.” 

{¶12} The State argues that it did not have the burden of demonstrating substantial 

compliance in this case because Mr. Spurlock did not set forth an adequate factual basis in his 

motion to suppress identifying how he believed Trooper Holden failed to comply with 

standardized testing procedures. It notes that Mr. Spurlock did not even mention the NHTSA 

manual in his motion. See State v. Codeluppi, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 11CA010133, 2012-Ohio5812, ¶ 24-26. 

{¶13} Mr. Spurlock argues, and we agree, that the State forfeited its opportunity to 

challenge the adequacy of his motion to suppress by failing to object to it in the municipal court. 

“While Crim.R. 47 requires a defendant to state his grounds for a motion to suppress ‘with 

particularity,’ the state waives this issue if it is not raised in opposition to a defendant’s motion to 

suppress.” State v. O’Neill, 175 Ohio App.3d 402, 2008-Ohio-818, ¶ 33 (6th Dist.); State v. 

Mayl, 154 Ohio App.3d 717, 2003-Ohio-5097, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.). In addition, this Court has 

recognized that a trial court may allow a defendant to supplement his motion to suppress during 

the suppression hearing. State v. Smith, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21069, 2003-Ohio-1306, ¶ 13. 

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the State forfeited its right to challenge whether the 

motion to suppress contained enough particularity by not raising that issue before the municipal 

court. 
7 

 

{¶14} There was no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the 

field sobriety tests Trooper Holden administered were in compliance with appropriate standards 

under Section 4511.19(D)(4)(b). Mr. Spurlock’s second assignment of error is sustained. 

III. 

{¶15} The municipal court correctly determined that Mr. Spurlock’s arrest was 

supported by probable cause, but it incorrectly denied his motion to suppress the results of the 

field sobriety tests. The judgment of the Elyria Municipal Court is affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and this matter is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this decision. 

Judgment affirmed in part, 

reversed in part, 

and cause remanded. 

 There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

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

Court, County of Lorain, 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. 
8 

 

 Costs taxed equally to both parties. 

 

 JENNIFER HENSAL 

 FOR THE COURT 

MOORE, P. J. 

WHITMORE, J. 

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

JACK BRADLEY, MALLORY J. HOLMES, and MICHAEL E. STEPANIK, Attorneys at Law, 

for Appellant. 

SCOTT SERAZIN, MATTHEW A. MISHAK, and MICHELLE D. NEDWICK, Attorneys at 

Law, for Appellee.