What happens if a police officer’s testimony regarding a traffic stop is not supported by the officer’s dash camera video? How would a judge rule on the justification for the traffic stop? A December 2014 case in the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Columbus, Ohio demonstrates that judges have broad discretion over evidentiary issues in DUI/OVI motion hearings.

In State v. Comer, the defendant was charged with DUI/OVI and filed a motion to suppress, claiming that all evidence discovered after the stop of the defendant’s vehicle was unconstitutional. At the motion hearing, the officer testified that she observed the defendant’s vehicle weaving, crossing lane lines, and almost hitting a concrete divider.

The video from the police officer’s vehicle did not show the defendant crossing lane lines and the defendant argued that this brought the officer’s credibility into question. The defendant further argued that the judge should find that there was no marked lanes violation and, thus, no justification to support the stop.

The prosecutor argued that the glare in the video, and distance between the cruiser and the defendant’s vehicle made the video inconclusive. Moreover, the prosecutor argued that the officer’s testimony alone was sufficient evidence that the defendant crossed the lane line.

The judge held that there was a marked lanes violation that justified the traffic stop based on the officer’s testimony. The defendant appealed this decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, who affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that the video was unclear was to whether the defendant’s vehicle crossed a marked lane line. The Court also cited several cases in which trial court rulings were upheld when traffic violations allegedly observed by officers could not be seen on their cruiser videos.

Other court of appeals in Ohio have rendered different opinions in similar cases in recent years. In State v. Larrick, the court overturned the defendant’s DUI/OVI conviction because the officer’s dash camera video contradicted the officer’s claim that the defendant committed a marked lanes violation. In State v. Ali, the court held that the defendant’s motion to suppress was properly granted when the officer’s video showed no marked lanes violation.

So, why are these decisions, based on similar facts, different? The answer is it depends on who is appealing the trial court’s decision. A trial court’s decision regarding the facts of a case are given a certain level of deference on appeal. As long as the trial court’s decision is supported by credible evidence, the factual findings will not be disturbed. For example, in Ali, the prosecution was appealing the trial court’s decision, and the court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s findings were supported by some evidence. Likewise, in Comer the defendant was appealing, and the court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s findings were supported by some evidence (i.e., the officer’s testimony).

In addition to who is appealing the ruling, the decision of the court will depend on whether the dash camera video actually contradicts the officer’s testimony or simply fails to support it. Larrick is the outlier where the video contradicted the officer’s testimony. Comer, where the video was inconclusive, is where most cases about this issue are.

Thus, trial courts are granted broad discretion in ruling on the facts in DUI/OVI motion hearings. Their rulings will only be disturbed if the court of appeals finds an abuse of discretion (i.e., that the findings have no evidentiary support).

Columbus and Delaware, Ohio DUI/OVI Defense Lawyer

If you have been charged with DUI/OVI in Columbus or Delaware, Ohio, contact Johnson Legal, LLC and speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney. Attorney David Johnson of Johnson Legal, LLC will discuss your case and assist you in fighting the charges. Call (614) 987-0192 or send an email to schedule a consultation regarding your DUI case.