Background
Anthony Lewis was convicted of OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) after causing two separate collisions on a Sunday morning. When the responding officer approached Lewis, he detected the odor of alcohol, slurred and mumbling speech, and very slowed motor skills. Lewis admitted to consuming rum earlier that morning, and the officer found a half-empty bottle of dark liquor in the vehicle.
The officer attempted to administer standardized field sobriety tests but could only partially complete the HGN test because Lewis could not follow instructions. The walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests were not administered due to Lewis’s foot injury. The officer instead conducted nonstandardized tests from the NHTSA manual (alphabet count, number count, finger count), on all of which Lewis performed poorly. Lewis moved to suppress, arguing the nonstandardized tests should be excluded and that without them, probable cause was lacking.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed the conviction. On the motion to suppress, the court held that standardized field sobriety tests are not required for probable cause to arrest for OVI. Even where the SFST battery cannot be completed, probable cause may rest on the totality of circumstances, including the officer’s direct observations: odor of alcohol, slurred speech, slow motor skills, the open container, the defendant’s admission of drinking, the two collisions, and the defendant’s inability to follow instructions. The court found the nonstandardized tests, while not scientifically validated by NHTSA, were properly used for observational purposes.
The court also rejected Lewis’s prosecutorial misconduct claim regarding alleged burden-shifting in closing argument, finding no plain error where the statement was a reasonable inference from the evidence rather than an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio law does not require completed standardized field sobriety tests for probable cause to arrest for OVI; the totality of circumstances, including officer observations, is sufficient.
- Nonstandardized tests from the NHTSA manual (alphabet, finger count, number count) are admissible for the officer’s observational purposes even though they are not scientifically validated.
- Physical limitations that prevent a defendant from completing certain SFSTs do not defeat probable cause when other indicia of impairment are present.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical guide for Ohio OVI practitioners on both sides. For prosecutors, the opinion confirms that a robust set of officer observations can sustain probable cause even when standardized testing is incomplete or impossible. For defense counsel, the case underscores the importance of challenging each individual observation on the merits, as the totality-of-circumstances standard gives courts wide latitude to find probable cause. The court’s treatment of nonstandardized tests as legitimate observational tools — while acknowledging they lack scientific validation — sets a standard that defense attorneys should address head-on in suppression hearings.