Court Opinion

ID: 9882728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:19:10.139579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:51.116776
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Parma v. Perotti, 2023-Ohio-3472.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

CITY OF PARMA,                                      :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                :         No. 112089

                 v.                                 :

DEREK PEROTTI,                                      :

                 Defendant-Appellant.               :
                                                                 _____

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 28, 2023
                                _________

                      Criminal Appeal from the Parma Municipal Court
                                  Case No. 21-TRC-15946
                                 ______

                                              Appearances:

                 Timothy G. Dobeck, Law Director/Chief Prosecutor, and
                 Gregory A. Gentile, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.

                 Russell S. Bensing, for appellant.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

                   Defendant-appellant Derek Perotti appeals the trial court’s denial of

his motion to suppress evidence that was used to convict him of operating a vehicle

under the influence (“OVI”) following a jury trial. Perotti contends that the trial

court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because officers lacked
reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests and lacked probable cause to

arrest him for OVI.

              For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Procedural and Factual Background

              On December 5, 2021, Perotti was arrested and charged with one

count of operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol in violation of

R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) (Count 1) and one count of operating a vehicle under the

influence of drugs or alcohol — BAC refusal with prior conviction — in violation of

R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) (Count 2). He pled not guilty to the charges.

              On March 15, 2022, Perotti filed a motion to suppress evidence,

seeking to suppress “any and all evidence” involving the “the alleged results of any

field sobriety exercises and/or refusal to submit to chemical testing” related to the

case, including tests of Perotti’s “coordination and sobriety,” observations and

opinions of the police officers who “stopped, observed, arrested, and/or tested”

Perotti regarding his sobriety and any statements taken from, or made by, Perotti.

              On May 17, 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion

to suppress. Parma Patrol Officer Kyle Shoemaker testified at the hearing. As

Shoemaker testified, the city played video footage from Shoemaker’s body camera

that captured his interactions with Perotti. The body camera footage was admitted

into evidence as Joint Exhibit A.

              Shoemaker testified that, during the late evening of Saturday,

December 4, 2021 or early morning of Sunday, December 5, 2021, he was dispatched
to the Southern Parma Circle area to respond to a 911 call reporting “suspicious

males walking up to young females’ porches.” According to Shoemaker, the 911

caller — a young female — reported that two vehicles, one of which was a black Buick

sedan, were parked in front of her residence and that “a gentleman” had been sitting

on her front porch. The caller indicated that when she asked the man why he was

on her porch, he responded, “Don’t worry about it,” walked to his car (which was

parked in front of the residence) and then “sat in front of his car for an extended

period of time.”

              Shoemaker testified that, as he approached the residence, he

observed a black Buick sedan parked near the 911 caller’s residence. Shoemaker

stated that, at that time, he had “no idea what [he was] walking into,” e.g., it could

have been a felony, it could have been a misdemeanor trespass or it “could have been

any crime at that point.”     Shoemaker indicated that the Buick left the scene

immediately upon his arrival. Shoemaker activated his overhead lights and followed

the Buick. He observed the vehicle for less than five seconds before it pulled over.

Shoemaker stated that, during the limited time he observed the vehicle, no traffic

violations were committed. He indicated that the driver was not driving erratically,

the vehicle did not strike the curb, the vehicle was not speeding and the driver did

not have any difficulty stopping the vehicle in response to Shoemaker’s activation of

his lights. Shoemaker testified that he stopped the Buick based solely on the 911 call

and had “no reason to believe at the time that [he] was approaching somebody who

may have been impaired.”
               Shoemaker exited his police cruiser and approached the Buick. He

testified that, “due to the nature of the call and knowing what ha[d] transpired,” he

told the driver (later identified as Perotti) to place his hands outside the window so

he could see “if he had a weapon or anything” and requested that he provide

identification and proof of insurance. He stated that he had to ask Perotti twice to

show his hands before he complied.

               Shoemaker testified that Perotti then “began making some

movements” that made Shoemaker “uneasy.” Although Perotti told Shoemaker that

his license was in his pocket, he appeared to have some difficulty locating it and

started “reaching for other areas of his person or in his vehicle.” Shoemaker stated

that he asked Perotti to exit the vehicle due to a concern for officer safety.

Shoemaker testified that he asked Perotti several times why he was in the area but

that Perotti “never gave us a clear answer.”

               Shoemaker patted Perotti down, handcuffed him and placed him in

the back of his police cruiser. After he was handcuffed, Perotti asked Shoemaker

several times whether he was being arrested. Each time, Shoemaker responded that

Perotti was not under arrest but was “being detained” for “the duration of the

investigation” of “the incident that occurred with the young females.” Shoemaker

maintained that, at that point, he could have arrested Perotti for trespass but did not

do so because he was still gathering information.

               Shoemaker asked Perotti whether officers could search his vehicle;

Perotti refused. Officer Schuld, a K-9 officer who was assisting Shoemaker, then
walked his dog around the vehicle. No narcotics or other drugs were indicated. After

Schuld completed the walkaround of the vehicle, Perotti asked if he could leave;

Shoemaker told him he could not and that he was still being detained.

               Shoemaker testified that, once Perotti was in the back of the cruiser,

he had “more of a face-to-face communication” with Perotti. Shoemaker stated that,

at that point, he smelled “a stronger odor of alcohol coming from [Perotti’s]

breath[]” and observed his eyes to be “red” and “glossy.” He indicated that Perotti

“admit[ted] to having an alcoholic beverage” and informed Shoemaker that he had

“come from a bar.” Shoemaker testified that Perotti appeared confused regarding

where he was and where he was going and that Perotti’s “story and behavior were

not adding up to a normal person’s behavior to imply more of an impaired state.”

Shoemaker explained that, although Perotti told the officers that he had pulled off

Ridge Road, Perotti was observed nearly 40 houses down from Ridge Road such that

Perotti’s location did not make sense to Shoemaker. Shoemaker testified that there

were no issues with Perotti’s speech, e.g., his speech was not slurred, but claimed

that Perotti exhibited “verbal combativeness” because “[h]e was not being up front

and forthcoming with some of his answers.”

               Shoemaker testified that he asked Perotti repeatedly whether he had

been on the 911 caller’s porch and that, each time, Perotti denied it.

               Shoemaker asked Perotti to exit the cruiser so that he could

administer standardized field sobriety tests. Although he was handcuffed, Perotti

did not stumble as he exited the cruiser.        The handcuffs were removed and
Shoemaker administered three sobriety tests: the walk-and-turn test, the one-

legged-stand test and the horizontal-gaze-nystagmus (“HGN”) test.               Prior to

commencing the tests, Perotti informed Shoemaker that he had a problem with his

right knee.

               Shoemaker testified regarding his qualifications and experience as a

police officer and his training in conducting field sobriety tests. He testified as to

how he conducted each test and how Perotti performed on each test.                   The

administration of the field sobriety tests was captured on the body camera footage

introduced at the hearing.

               Shoemaker testified that, during the walk-and-turn test, Perotti

exhibited five of eight indicators of impairment — two of which were sufficient to

evidence impairment — i.e., he was unable to keep his balance during the instruction

phase; he started the test too soon; he was in the wrong starting position and placed

his left foot in front of his right foot instead of placing his right foot in front of his

left foot, as directed; he raised his arms for balance and he stepped off the line and

did not touch heel-to-toe on every step.

               Shoemaker testified that, during the one-legged-stand test, Perotti

became “verbally combative” and, contrary to instructions, did not lift his foot off

the ground. Shoemaker stated that he regarded Perotti’s response as a “refusal” to

submit to the test due to Perotti’s “verbal combativeness” and failure to complete

the test after having been given the instructions for the test three times.
               Shoemaker testified that Perotti exhibited four out of six indicators of

impairment on the HGN test. He stated that Perotti exhibited no signs of vertical

gaze nystagmus.

               After administering the field sobriety tests, Shoemaker placed Perotti

under arrest for OVI and transported him to the Parma jail. At the jail, Perotti

refused to submit to a chemical breath test.

               During the suppression hearing, Perotti conceded that the initial stop

of Perotti’s vehicle for investigative purposes was valid but contended that (1)

Shoemaker lacked reasonable suspicion to request that Perotti submit to field

sobriety tests, (2) Shoemaker lacked probable cause to arrest him for OVI and (3)

the field sobriety testing was not conducted in substantial compliance with National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) guidelines.

               After considering the evidence presented and the parties’ arguments,

the trial court excluded all evidence of the HGN test, concluding that Shoemaker

had not properly administered that test. The trial court also noted that it saw

nothing to indicate that Perotti was “verbally combative” during the administration

of the field sobriety tests. However, the trial court otherwise denied the motion to

suppress, concluding that “the detention was valid” and that “there was probable

cause to arrest” Perotti for OVI.

               On June 10, 2022, Perotti filed a motion for findings of fact and

conclusions of law related to the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. On

June 30, 2022, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law.
               With respect to the administration of the field sobriety tests and the

circumstances that led to the administration of the sobriety tests, the trial court

found, in relevant part:

            While out of the vehicle and being questioned, Officer
      Shoemaker was able to smell a strong odor of alcohol coming from the
      Defendant and observed him to have glossy red eyes. Defendant
      admitted to consuming alcohol and appeared to be confused as to his
      whereabouts. The Officer asked defendant if he would consent to field
      sobriety testing. Defendant agreed.

            Defendant was instructed on the Walk and Turn. It was reported
      that Defendant failed this test.

            Defendant was instructed on the One Leg Stand Test. It was
      reported that Defendant failed this test.

               With respect to its determination that Shoemaker had probable cause

to arrest Perotti for OVI, the trial court further found:

      The Officer (Kyle Shoemaker) testified that Defendant was found in his
      vehicle; that Defendant had a strong smell of alcohol coming from
      inside his vehicle; that the Defendant was the only occupant of the
      vehicle; that Defendant had red glossy eyes; that the Defendant
      admitted to drinking “one beverage” and that he was returning from a
      bar, and that the Defendant seemed confused as to his whereabouts.
      The Court concluded that such evidence was sufficient to establish
      probable cause to arrest for OVI.

               On September 2, 2022, Perotti filed an objection to the trial court’s

finding of fact that Perotti had stated he was “returning from a bar,” claiming that

the statement could not be heard on the body camera footage introduced into

evidence and that the trial court had previously indicated that it did not hear the

alleged statement. Perotti requested that the trial court amend its findings of fact

and conclusions of law to remove this alleged statement and reexamine whether
there was probable cause for his arrest in the absence of the statement. The trial

court overruled the objection.

               The case proceeded to a jury trial. Perotti was found guilty on both

counts. The trial court further found that this was Perotti’s second OVI conviction

in the last six years. The trial court merged the counts for sentencing and sentenced

Perotti to 180 days in jail (160 days suspended) and 24 months of community

control. The trial court suspended Perotti’s driver’s license for 730 days (with

limited driving privileges) and ordered him to pay a $750 fine and costs. The trial

court thereafter stayed execution of Perotti’s sentence.

               Perotti appealed, raising the following assignment of error for review:

      The trial court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion to Suppress
      Evidence.

Law and Analysis

               Perotti argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to

suppress because Shoemaker (1) lacked a reasonable suspicion that Perotti was

driving while under the influence to justify the administration of field sobriety tests

and (2) lacked probable cause to arrest Perotti for OVI.
      Standard of Review

               “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question

of law and fact.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d

71, ¶ 8. When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, “[a]n appellate court must

accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible

evidence.” State v. Hawkins, 158 Ohio St.3d 94, 2019-Ohio-4210, 140 N.E.3d 577,

¶ 16, citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). With

respect to the trial court’s conclusions of law, i.e., whether the facts satisfy the

applicable legal standard, our standard of review is de novo. Cleveland v. Hyppolite,

2016-Ohio-7399, 76 N.E.2d 539, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.). “[T]he appellate court must decide

the legal questions independently, without deference to the trial court's decision.”

Hawkins at ¶ 16, citing Burnside at ¶ 8.

      Reasonable Suspicion to Administer Field Sobriety Tests

               Perotti argues that an odor of alcohol and red, glossy eyes were an

insufficient basis to detain Perotti to perform field sobriety tests “in the absence of

any evidence of slurred speech, erratic driving, balance problems, or failure to

comply with the commands of a police officer” and that the trial court, therefore,

erred in denying his motion to suppress.

               Once a driver has been lawfully stopped, an officer may not ask a

motorist to perform field sobriety tests unless the request is separately justified by a

reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that the motorist is intoxicated.

Westlake v. Goodman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111300, 2022-Ohio-3045, ¶ 19;
Cleveland v. Kalish, 2018-Ohio-682, 106 N.E.3d 881, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.); Parma Hts.

v. Dedejczyk, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97664, 2012-Ohio-3458, ¶ 29. Reasonable

suspicion requires that the officer “point to specific and articulable facts which,

taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the]

intrusion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); see

also Goodman at ¶ 19. Reasonable suspicion does not, however, require that an

officer “observe and relate overt signs of intoxication.” Cleveland v. Martin, 2018-

Ohio-740, 107 N.E.3d 809, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.). A court analyzes “‘the reasonableness

of the request based on the totality of the circumstances, viewed through the eyes of

a reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as

they unfold.’” Kalish at ¶ 19, quoting Dedejczyk at ¶ 29.

              In determining whether an officer had a reasonable, articulable

suspicion that a driver was operating a vehicle under the influence to support the

administration of field sobriety tests, courts generally consider a number of factors,

including, but not limited to:

      (1) the time of day of the stop (Friday or Saturday night as opposed to,
      e.g., Tuesday morning); (2) the location of the stop (whether near
      establishments selling alcohol); (3) any indicia of erratic driving before
      the stop that may indicate a lack of coordination (speeding, weaving,
      unusual braking, etc.); (4) whether there is a cognizable report that the
      driver may be intoxicated; (5) the condition of the suspect’s eyes
      (bloodshot, glassy, glazed, etc.); (6) impairments of the suspect’s ability
      to speak (slurred speech, overly deliberate speech, etc.); (7) the odor of
      alcohol coming from the interior of the car, or, more significantly, on
      the suspect’s person or breath; (8) the intensity of that odor, as
      described by the officer (“very strong,[”] “strong,” “moderate,” “slight,”
      etc.); (9) the suspect’s demeanor (belligerent, uncooperative, etc.); (10)
      any actions by the suspect after the stop that might indicate a lack of
      coordination (dropping keys, falling over, fumbling for a wallet, etc.);
      and (11) the suspect’s admission of alcohol consumption, the number
      of drinks had, and the amount of time in which they were consumed, if
      given.

State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56, 63, 711 N.E.2d 761 (11th Dist.1998), fn. 2; see

also State v. Waters, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110821, 2022-Ohio-2667, ¶ 25. Factors

are not viewed “‘in isolation,’” State v. Carpenter, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-22-20,

2023-Ohio-1702, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Null, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-19-50, 2020-Ohio-

3222, ¶ 19, and no single factor is determinative. Evans at 63, fn. 2; see also

Dedejczyk at ¶ 31 (explaining that such factors are “merely assistive guides in the

determination of reasonable suspicion” because “no one factor is dispositive” and

“the list does not represent an exhaustive account of factors that can or should be

considered”), citing State v. Boczar, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2004-A-0063, 2005-

Ohio-6910, ¶ 14. Courts generally find a reasonable suspicion exists to support the

administration of field sobriety tests only where the officer based his or her decision

on a number of factors, Evans at 63; however, “there is no ‘magic’ number of factors

required to be present to justify administering field sobriety tests.”        State v.

Reynolds, 11th Dist. Lake Nos. 2022-L-092 and 2022-L-095, 2023-Ohio-2030, ¶ 3,

31. As the Sixth District has explained:

      It is often a close issue whether the specific facts of a case provide an
      officer with reasonable suspicion for conducting field sobriety tests.
      State v. Beeley, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-05-1386, 2006-Ohio-4799, * * *
      ¶ 16. Such decisions are “very fact-intensive.” Athens v. Burkhart,
      2016-Ohio-7534, 64 N.E.3d 1004, ¶ 15 (4th Dist.). Ohio courts often
      reach differing conclusions when faced with seemingly similar
      circumstances. Numerous factors may be considered, and small
      differences between officers’ descriptions of an encounter can form the
      basis for opposite outcomes. State v. Watkins, 2021-Ohio-1443, 170
      N.E.3d 549, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.).

State v. Martorana, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-22-011, 2023-Ohio-662, ¶ 34.

               Perotti contends that, although there was some evidence of alcohol

consumption, the record does not support the trial court’s finding that Perotti told

Shoemaker he had been “coming from a bar” — i.e., that that statement was not

captured on the body camera video — and that Shoemaker otherwise lacked

evidence that would lead to a reasonable suspicion that Perotti was impaired prior

to conducting the field sobriety tests. Perotti points out that “‘it is not illegal to

consume and then operate a motor vehicle’” and that “‘[o]nly if the driver’s ability to

operate the vehicle is appreciably impaired * * * does a person violate the law,’”

quoting State v. Keserich, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 14-COA-011, 2014-Ohio-5120, ¶ 13.

He contends that an “odor of alcohol” is evidence of consumption not intoxication

and that red, glossy eyes are not necessarily evidence of impairment, particularly

when observed “sometime after midnight.”

               With respect to Perotti’s claim that the record did not support the trial

court’s finding that Perotti had come from a bar, review of the body camera footage

reveals that, as Shoemaker was leading Perotti to the back of his police cruiser, he

asked Perotti, “What are you doing over here?” Perotti responded, “I stopped on the

way back from the,” but the remainder of his statement trails off and is not clearly

captured on the audio of the body camera video. Shoemaker testified that he

believed Perotti had stated that he had “come from a bar” before he and Perotti
walked back to his cruiser. He indicated the microphone of the body camera may

have been stopped “via me pulling my pen in and out” but that he specifically

recalled Perotti “stating at some point that he came from a bar.” We cannot say,

based on the record before us, that Shoemaker’s testimony was so incredible that it

could not have been reasonably believed and that the trial court’s finding that Perotti

had stated he had come from a bar was not supported by competent, credible

evidence.

                 The city’s burden to demonstrate a reasonable, articulable suspicion

of driving while under the influence of alcohol is “not a high one.” Martin, 2018-

Ohio-740, 107 N.E.3d 809, at ¶ 16. While Perotti argues that there were numerous

indicators of impairment that were not present here, such as erratic driving, slurred

speech, lack of physical coordination or refusal to comply with police commands,

“not every OVI case is going to have the same indicators of impairment, which is

why the totality of the circumstances must be considered.” Carpenter, 2023-Ohio-

1702, at ¶ 17.

                 Considering the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the trial

court that Shoemaker’s administration of field sobriety tests was supported by a

reasonable suspicion, based upon articulable facts, that Perotti had been driving

impaired.

                 Police officers are not “required to obtain evidence demonstrating

overt intoxication, such as slurred speech or stumbling, sloppy behaviors, in order

to justify the administration of field sobriety tests.” Martin at ¶ 19. Further, “[n]ot
every case will involve overt signs of intoxication or violations of the traffic laws, and

we cannot create such a requirement before the field sobriety tests are deemed

constitutionally valid.” Id. at ¶ 20, citing Chagrin Falls v. Bloom, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 101686, 2015-Ohio-2264, ¶ 9. Likewise, “‘“[a] determination that reasonable

suspicion exists * * * need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.”’” State

v. Ramos, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-21-32, 2022-Ohio-886, ¶ 29 (observations that

defendant’s eyes were bloodshot, that he was talkative and that his movements were

erratic and “herky-jerky” “[i]n conjunction with everything else” known to the officer

at the time, warranted the officer in expanding the scope of the encounter with

defendant to investigate whether he was driving under the influence of an intoxicant

“even if there were some noncriminal explanation for [the defendant’s] behavior,

such as that he was tired after having been awake for 30 hours”), quoting Hawkins,

158 Ohio St.3d 94, 2019-Ohio-4210, 140 N.E.3d 577, at ¶ 22, quoting United States

v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002).

               In support of his position, Perotti cites several cases that he contends

are analogous to this case, in which courts held that the facts did not support a

finding of reasonable suspicion. However, each of these cases is distinguishable

from this case. See State v. Stricklin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1277, 2012-Ohio-

1877, ¶ 12 (“Traffic violations of a de minimis nature, combined with a slight odor of

an alcoholic beverage, and an admission of having consumed a ‘couple’ beers, are

not sufficient to support a reasonable and articulable suspicion of DUI.”); State v.

Swartz, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2008 CA 31, 2009-Ohio-902, ¶ 16 (“A de minimis traffic
violation, coupled with glassy, bloodshot eyes and an unspecified odor of alcohol is

insufficient justification to conduct field sobriety tests.”); State v. Reed, 7th Dist.

Belmont No. 05 BE 31, 2006-Ohio-7075, ¶ 10-27 (“slight smell of alcohol,” “red

glassy eyes” and admission of drinking two beers was insufficient to detain

defendant to conduct field sobriety tests where officer did not witness a moving

violation or erratic driving, defendant was “cooperative” and “his speech was good”);

State v. Spillers, 2d Dist. Darke No. 1504, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1151, 7-9 (Mar. 24,

2000) (de minimis traffic violations combined with a “slight” odor of alcohol and an

admission to having consumed “a couple” of beers, was insufficient to support a

reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence, in the absence of evidence of

any other indicia of impairment, such as bloodshot eyes or slurred speech).

               Here, several factors supported Shoemaker’s decision to administer

field sobriety tests. Perotti was stopped on a late Saturday evening/early Sunday

morning after leaving a bar. Perotti admitted to having consumed alcohol before

driving. Shoemaker testified that Perotti was acting strangely, i.e., that he could not

provide a “clear answer” as to why he was in the vicinity and seemed confused about

his whereabouts, that he smelled a “stronger odor” of alcohol on Perotti’s breath and

that he observed Perotti’s eyes to be “red” and “glossy.” Perotti’s discombobulation

and red, glossy eyes can be seen on the body camera footage admitted into evidence

at the suppression hearing. The video also shows Perotti fumbling around as he

attempts to locate his identification in response to the officer’s request. Although

Shoemaker acknowledged that he did not observe any signs of erratic driving,
speeding or weaving when following Perotti, he had observed Perotti’s driving for

“just a block,” for “five seconds or so,” before pulling him over. Perotti’s vehicle was

stopped in connection with the investigation of the 911 call, not because Shoemaker

had observed a violation of traffic laws or had a concern that he might be driving

impaired.

               The totality of the articulable facts and circumstances was sufficient

to support a reasonable suspicion that Perotti had been driving impaired.

      Probable Cause to Arrest for OVI

               Perotti also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that

Shoemaker had probable cause to arrest him for OVI.

               Probable cause to arrest exists when an officer is aware of facts that

and circumstances, based on reasonably trustworthy information, that would lead a

prudent person to believe that the suspect had committed or was committing a

crime. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). In

assessing whether an officer had probable cause to arrest for OVI, a court must

determine whether, “‘at the moment of the arrest, the police 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.’” Hyppolite, 2016-Ohio-7399, 76 N.E.2d 539, at ¶ 57,

quoting State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000),

superseded by statute on other grounds. A probable cause determination is based
on the totality of facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the police officer.

Goodman, 2022-Ohio-3045, at ¶ 25.

               Perotti argues that the “only evidence supporting the finding of

probable cause” was the results of the field sobriety tests and that, if there was no

reasonable suspicion to perform the field sobriety tests, “it stands to reason that the

same evidence could not support the higher finding of probable cause.”             We

disagree.

               Upon review of the record, we find that at the time of Perotti’s arrest,

Shoemaker had sufficient facts — based on his own observations — to cause a

prudent person to believe that Perotti had been driving under the influence of

alcohol. As detailed above, Shoemaker observed Perotti driving the Buick. He

detected a strong odor of alcohol on Perotti’s breath and observed his red, glossy

eyes. Perotti admitted consuming alcohol, admitted to coming from a bar and

seemed confused regarding his whereabouts.          During the field sobriety tests

administered by Shoemaker, Perotti exhibited five indicators of impairment during

the walk-and-turn test and failed to raise his foot off the ground during the one-leg-

stand test. On this record, Shoemaker had probable cause to arrest Perotti. See,

e.g., Tallmadge v. McCoy, 96 Ohio App.3d 604, 610, 645 N.E.2d 802 (9th

Dist.1994) (“When an officer, after a lawful stop, observes that the driver has glassy,

bloodshot eyes, a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and is able to perform

physical coordination tests only poorly, probable cause exists both for the detention

for inquiry and the subsequent arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.”),
citing State v. Williams, 83 Ohio App.3d 536, 539, 615 N.E.2d 317 (3d Dist.1992)

(“When an officer, upon lawfully stopping an automobile driver, observes that the

driver has glassy, bloodshot eyes, the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath,

and is able to perform physical coordination tests only poorly, probable cause exists

both for the detention for inquiry and the subsequent arrest of that driver for driving

under the influence of alcohol, R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), and to thereafter administer a

lawful BAC test to the driver to determine whether a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(3)

has also occurred.”); State v. Carroll, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 95-C-9, 1996 Ohio

App. LEXIS 2464, 6-7 (June 13, 1996) (holding that there was probable cause to

arrest defendant for driving while under the influence of alcohol where officer

testified that he could smell a strong odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath, that

defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy and that the defendant failed two out of

three field sobriety tests); see also State v. Farey, 2018-Ohio-1466, 110 N.E.3d 960,

¶ 34 (5th Dist.) (it was not necessary for officer to observe poor driving performance

in order to place appellant under arrest for driving under the influence “when all the

facts and circumstances lead to the conclusion that appellant was impaired”).

               Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the

trial court did not err in denying Perotti’s motion to suppress. Perotti’s assignment

of error is overruled.

               Judgment affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant the costs herein taxed.
      It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Parma Municipal Court to

carry this judgment into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR