Background
A Greenville police officer stopped Joseph W. Impson’s vehicle at approximately 2:30 a.m. because its license-plate light was not working. The officer observed open alcohol containers, smelled alcohol, and noticed that Impson had bloodshot, glossy eyes and slurred speech. Impson acknowledged drinking and agreed to a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but he declined the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests.
Impson moved to suppress evidence from the stop, the field sobriety testing, and his arrest. The municipal court denied the motion, finding the stop lawful and the HGN test administered in substantial compliance with applicable standards. A jury convicted Impson of operating a vehicle under the influence, and the court separately found him guilty of the license-plate-light violation.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District held that the traffic stop was lawful because the officer observed the nonfunctioning license-plate light within Greenville before initiating the stop. Although the trial court improperly required Impson to present evidence first at the suppression hearing, that error was not plain error because the relevant evidence was presented, Impson had a full opportunity to examine witnesses, and the record did not show that the court misplaced the State’s burden of persuasion.
The appellate court nevertheless held that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the HGN test in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards. The officer inserted pauses during the smooth-pursuit portion and did not hold the stimulus at maximum deviation for the required minimum of four seconds. The HGN results therefore should have been suppressed, requiring reversal of the OVI conviction and a new trial at which those results may not be introduced. The court found the trial evidence legally sufficient to support the OVI charge, however, and affirmed the license-plate-light conviction.
Key Takeaways
- HGN results are admissible only when the State proves by clear and convincing evidence that the test substantially complied with NHTSA standards.
- At the new trial, the State may not introduce the HGN results, but officers may testify about general observations such as Impson’s difficulty following or remembering instructions.
- The court criticized the prosecutor for repeatedly speculating in closing argument that Impson had attended a party, because no evidence supported that assertion, although the issue was moot in light of the new-trial ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that deviations from required HGN procedures can make the test results inadmissible even when a motorist is uncooperative or distracted. Officers’ general observations may remain admissible, but they do not excuse the State from proving substantial compliance before presenting HGN results.
The ruling also illustrates the distinction between evidentiary sufficiency and trial error: sufficient evidence permitted a retrial rather than an acquittal, while the erroneous admission of the HGN results required the original OVI conviction to be reversed.