Reasonable Suspicion for a Traffic Stop: Brake Light

There is a misconception among Ohio law enforcement officers that having a broken taillight is a traffic violation. They use this “violation” as an excuse to pull a driver over in the late night hours who is otherwise not driving erratically. From there, things go from bad to worse as the officer smells alcohol and notes other indicia of impairment, asks the driver to exit the vehicle and perform Field Sobriety Tests, thus establishing probable cause for arrest without a warrant for DUI.

But the problem is that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to pull a vehicle over in the first place. Absent such reasonable suspicion, all evidence gathered pursuant to the stop must be suppressed. There is case law in Ohio which stands for the proposition that having only one functioning taillight is legal.

Thus if, at the suppression hearing, your attorney gets the officer to testify that the only reason that he pulled you over was for the broken taillight, then it would be reversible error for the trial court not to suppress all evidence from the stop and onward, leaving the prosecutor with no evidence to place before a jury.

The cases on this are State of Ohio v. Guysinger (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 592 (Fourth District); State of Ohio v. Caldwell, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 148 (Fourth District); State of Ohio v. Frye (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 133 (Ninth District); State of Ohio v. Roach, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3581 (Fourth District); and State of Ohio v.
Vannest, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 5691 (Fourth District).

Fight your DUI charge

Technorati Tags: dui, ovi, omvi, dui law, dui arrest, ohio dui law, dui conviction, dui charge, drunk driving