Reasonable Suspicion for a Traffic Stop: Brake Light
January 20, 2008
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).
Technorati Tags: dui, ovi, omvi, dui law, dui arrest, ohio dui law, dui conviction, dui charge, drunk driving
I was driving to work( Security Officer for a local school district) and was pulled over by a Shaker Hts. Police officer. He gave no indication as to why I was being pulled over. He took my license and later returned to inform me that my license were under suspension for not having insurance. I have no problem with the officer giving me the ticket. My problem is he pulled me over in the first place. I wasnt speeding or driving irraticly! I had my seat belt on as always! I was under the impression that an officer had to have reasonable suspicion before pulled you over
Mr. Darden,
The Officer probably checked the license plate in the computer to see if the owner had a valid license or any warrants. The Officer probably found that you were suspended by running your license plates.
I too was driving home at nigjht in Shaker Heights and a police officer pulled me over. I was not driving erraticly nor had I violated any traffic laws. The police officer gave no reason why I was pulled over. He asked for my drivers license and returned with a ticket for a supended drivers license. Since he never informed me why I was pulled over, I believe that my constitutional rights were violated and no ticket should have been issued unless I was informed why he was pulling me over.
see corrected spelling of name
While driving my bosses car at apprx 3am (he cant drive – dui) I was pulled over due to broken light on the rear license plate. I was smoking cigarette at the time–no way alcohol could be smelled on me–I wasnt drinking. A female passenger was totally drunk that is why i was driving her home for the boss. I had not slept and was extremely tired–passed field test…..took to station…tried blowing several times test was rated not failing or passing…..test was done improperly..they did not wait the 20 minutes I blew hard and could hardly get thru test….ws told my small frame and years of cigarettes i can hardly breathe.i did state i had 2 beers (which is true )early in evening….Thats all i ever have…i have a 4 yr old daughter to take care of. I feel my rights were violated.