State v. Conover

14 Citing cases

  1. Cincinnati v. Kromski

    102 Ohio App. 3d 621 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 9 times
    In Kromski, probable cause to arrest was found based on the fact that a vehicle driven by Kromski had struck several parked cars.

    In this case it is undisputed that Kromski was at fault when he collided with several cars, which is direct evidence of erratic driving from which impairment can be inferred. State v. Conover (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 161, 163, 23 OBR 403, 405, 492 N.E.2d 464, 466. At the scene of the accident, Kromski smelled of alcohol and he admitted recent consumption of alcohol.

  2. State v. Robinson

    104 Ohio App. 3d 182 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    Beck v. Ohio (1964), 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142.'" State v. Conover (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 161, 162, 23 OBR 403, 404, 492 N.E.2d 464, 465, quoting State v. Giner (Mar. 28, 1984), Summit App. No. 11385, unreported, 1984 WL 4818. In this case, appellant's violation of the loitering ordinance, coupled with the exchange observed by the arresting officer, supports the probable cause necessary to satisfy the constitutionality of the arrest.

  3. State v. Lautzenheiser

    77 Ohio App. 3d 461 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 5 times
    In Lautzenheiser, the motion for discovery was not in writing and failed to provide the prosecutor with sufficient notice of the purpose of the motion.

    " Beck v. Ohio (1964), 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142. See State v. Moore (Aug. 30, 1989), Crawford App. No. 3-88-4, unreported 1989 WL 100144, citing, State v. Conover (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 161, 23 OBR 403, 492 N.E.2d 464. Under the Draper and Beck standards set forth above, the review of circumstances constituting probable cause should always remain a matter of case-by-case analysis.

  4. Bucyrus v. Williams

    46 Ohio App. 3d 43 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 11 times
    Driving under the influence

    Id. at 372. In State v. Conover (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 161, 162, 23 OBR 403, 404, 492 N.E.2d 464, 465, quoting State v. Giner (Mar. 28, 1984), Summit App. No. 11385, unreported, the Ninth District Court of Appeals defined "probable cause" as follows: "`* * * The existence of probable cause is determined by factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men act.

  5. City of Akron v. Burch

    2019 Ohio 121 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

    {¶12} Having reviewed the record, we hold that the trial court erred by finding that, at the moment of the arrest, Officer White did not have sufficient information, derived from a reasonably trustworthy source of facts and circumstances, to cause a prudent person to believe that Ms. Burch was driving under the influence. See Krzemieniewski, 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0015-M, 2016-Ohio-4991, at ¶ 11; State v. Conover, 23 Ohio App.3d 161, 162-163 (9th Dist.1985) (holding that probable cause existed where the defendant was involved in a single-vehicle accident, admitted to drinking two beers, smelled of alcohol, and had glassy eyes). The City's assignment of error is, therefore, sustained.

  6. State v. Hummel

    2003 Ohio 4602 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that “probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the police officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had committed or was committing an offense. In situations where the arresting officer has not observed the operation of the vehicle, such facts and circumstances would necessarily have to include a relationship between the time there was evidence to show the influence of intoxicants and the time of operation of the vehicle.”

    {¶ 34} Based upon all of the information within Trooper Shevlin's knowledge at the time, i.e., a single vehicle accident with no apparent explanation other than impaired control, the location of the vehicle, the strong odor of alcohol on appellee, appellee's slurred speech and glassy eyes, and the fact that appellee was still being treated at the scene, there was probable cause for the arrest. See generally, Oregon; Bernard; Regner, supra ; State v. Conover (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 161; State v. Baker (May 16, 1994), 12th Dist. No. CA93-09-170, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 2098; Lyons, supra. {¶ 35} The trial court found that appellee's slurred speech and glassy eyes could be attributed to his serious head injuries.

  7. State v. Teeters

    No. 295 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2002)

    A "single vehicle accident suggests erratic driving from which impairment could be inferred." State v. Conover (1985) 23 Ohio App.3d 161, 163. Thus, these indicia provide enough evidence under the totality of circumstances to establish probable cause to arrest appellant.

  8. State v. Nietfeld

    Case Number 2-01-05 (Ohio Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2001)   Cited 5 times

    In examining these factual and practical considerations the focus is on whether, at the moment of the arrest, the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonable trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the suspect had committed an offense. State v. Conover (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 161, 162, quoting State v. Giner (Mar. 28, 1984), Summit App. No. 11385, unreported (citations omitted). See, also, State v. Rutkowski (Aug. 25, 1995), Union App. Nos. 14-94-50, 14-94-51, 14-94-52, unreported.

  9. State v. Robinson

    C.A. Case No. 18714, T.C. Case No. 2000 TRC 12917 (Ohio Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2001)

    Probable cause has been found where a Defendant is involved in an unobserved single-car accident, admits to having consumed alcohol, and displays physical indicia of intoxication. State v. Conover (1985) 23 Ohio App.3d 161; Westlake v. Vilfoy (1983) 11 Ohio App.3d 26. Clearly, in the case sub judice, the officers did not observe any driving by the Defendant.

  10. STATE v. NEU

    Trial No. C-99TRC-17480. Appeal No. C-990552 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2000)   Cited 7 times

    Therefore, Miller had probable cause to arrest him. Beck v. Ohio (1964), 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225; State v. Heston (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 152, 155-156, 280 N.E.2d 376, 377; State v. Conover (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 161, 162, 492 N.E.2d 464, 465. Because Neu's detention and arrest did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, the trial court erred in granting his motion to suppress.