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.
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.
" 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.
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.
{¶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.
{¶ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.