{¶37} "In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as ‘viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.’ " James at ¶18, citing Gray , 2000 WL 973411, at 3, quoting State v. Shacklock , 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 98-T-0005 & 98-T-0083, 1999 WL 266620, 4 (Apr. 30, 1999), quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St. 86, 87-88, 48 N.E. 136 (1991). "The court reviewing the officer's actions must give due weight to the officer's experience and training, and view the evidence as it would be understood by those in law enforcement."
{¶ 18} "In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as `viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.'" Id. at 8, quoting State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), 11th Dist. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, 4, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St. 86, 87-88. "The court reviewing the officer's actions must give due weight to the officer's experience and training, and view the evidence as it would be understood by those in law enforcement."
An investigative stop is a seizure which is valid provided a reasonable and prudent police officer, viewing the totality of the circumstances, has a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 181; State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), 11th Dist. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, at 4. {¶ 14} In addition, the Supreme Court of Ohio and this court have "`repeatedly held that a minor violation of a traffic regulation * * * that is witnessed by a police officer is, standing alone, sufficient justification to stop a vehicle.'"
When evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as "`viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as the unfold.'" State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 4, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 87-88. See, also, State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus; Gray at 8; Hrubik at 7.
In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as "viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold." State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 4, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88. See, also, State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Jennings (Mar. 3, 2000), Trumbull App. No. 98-T-0196, unreported, at 3, 2000 WL 263741; Lillstrung at 3.
In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as "viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold." State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 4, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88. See, also, State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Jennings (Mar. 3, 2000), Trumbull App. No. 98-T-0196, unreported, at 3, 2000 WL 263741; Lillstrung at 3.
In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as "`viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.'" State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 4, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88. See, also, State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus; Schoenfeld at 3-4.
This court has consistently held that a police officer who stops a driver for a traffic violation, may arrest that driver for driving under the influence after considering the totality of the circumstances, indicia such as the time of night, smell of alcohol, erratic driving and unsatisfactory completion of the field sobriety tests exist. State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 6; State v. Evans (Mar. 27, 1998), Geauga App. No. 97-G-2069, unreported, at 10, fn. 2. In the instant matter, because Officer Vens saw appellant commit a traffic infraction, he had probable cause to perform the traffic stop.