State v. Hosler

2024 Ohio 5372

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 12, 2024
• Docket: 2024-L-041
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hosler, 2024-Ohio-5372.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-L-041 CITY OF WILLOUGHBY,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the Willoughby Municipal Court - vs -

ROBERT MURPHY HOSLER, Trial Court No. 2023 TRC 04405

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Decided: November 12, 2024 Judgment: Affirmed

Richard J. Perez, One Public Square, Willoughby, OH 44094 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Gregory S. Costabile, 1400 Fifth Third Center, 600 Superior Avenue, East, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robert M. Hosler, appeals the denial of his Motion to

Suppress Evidence in the Willoughby Municipal Court. For the following reasons, we

affirm the decision of the lower court.

{¶2} On August 18, 2023, Hosler was cited for OVI in violation of R.C.

4511.19(A)(1)(a) and Failure to Control / Driving in Weaving Course in violation of

Willoughby Cod.Ord. 432.37.

{¶3} On September 15, 2023, Hosler filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. {¶4} A hearing on the Motion to Suppress was held on April 29, 2024. Patrolman

Jonathan Mehm testified on behalf of the State. He testified that, on August 18, 2023, he

was stopped at a traffic light at the intersection of Shankland Avenue and Euclid Avenue,

two cars behind Hosler’s vehicle. Hosler attracted Mehm’s attention when he did not

immediately proceed after the light turned green. When Hosler did proceed, turning left

(westbound) onto Euclid Avenue, he struck the curb on the north side of Euclid Avenue.

Thereafter, Hosler continued “weaving towards the righthand side of the roadway.”

“Believing that Mr. Hosler [was] going to run off the roadway and crash,” Mehm initiated

a traffic stop.

{¶5} The municipal court denied the Motion at the conclusion of the hearing,

making the following findings from the bench:

Well, based on the testimony of the officer, there was sufficient testimony here that the police officer, Officer Mehm, is a certified peace officer in the State of Ohio. He possesses the requisite training to issue traffic citations. And he testified that he was on patrol on the 18th of August of ’23, about 5:21 p.m., marked cruiser, wearing his uniform, on patrol in the City of Willoughby. And he testified to his observations of the traffic violations.

Now, there was testimony this is a dashcam. The dashcam, by its nature, is stationary on the vehicle; it’s not going to capture everything that’s happening in a panoramic view. So, he indicates that he was, his attention was brought to the vehicle when he was delayed in making the lefthand turn over from Shankland onto Euclid Avenue. So, he’s brought to the attention of the vehicle, sees the vehicle hit the curb, and based on that, he decides that he is going to initiate a traffic stop.

He says there was, he testified that the vehicle recorrected itself, continued westbound, and based on the violation, that he stopped the vehicle. He testified that he activated his lights. He had passed two cars, at least to conduct the traffic stop, and the vehicle was not stopping with just the lights on. Then he had to initiate sirens going down Euclid Avenue, and [t]he vehicle still did not stop. The vehicle, in the dashcam, while he’s [Hosler] in the righthand lane, he 2

Case No. 2024-L-041 actually engages his lefthand turn signal for a period of time; then that is disengaged, and then he engages the righthand turn signal to make the right down towards the shopping area. And then the vehicle was stopped.

{¶6} On May 13, 2024, Hosler entered a plea of no contest to OVI and the Failure

to Control charge was dismissed.

{¶7} On June 12, 2024, Hosler filed a Notice of Appeal. On appeal, he raises

the following assignment of error: “The trial court committed reversible error by denying

appellant’s motion to suppress evidence.”

{¶8} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law

and fact.” State v. Burnside, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. “When considering a motion to

suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best

position to resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of witnesses.” Id. “[A]n

appellate court must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by

competent, credible evidence.” Id. “Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court

must then independently [i.e., de novo] determine, without deference to the conclusion of

the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Id.

{¶9} It is not disputed that Hosler’s vehicle striking the curb provided Officer

Mehm with reasonable suspicion necessary to effect an investigatory stop. State v.

Hancock, 2005-Ohio-4478, ¶ 14 (11th Dist.) (“[s]triking a curb is an instance of erratic

driving that can justify an investigative stop”). Rather, Hosler’s position is that the

evidence does not support the municipal court’s finding that Mehm actually saw Hosler’s

vehicle strike the curb. In support of the contention that Mehm’s hearing testimony was

not credible, Hosler notes that the dashcam video did not show Hosler striking the curb

while turning; the written police report states that Hosler “struck the curb multiple times 3

Case No. 2024-L-041 and was weaving” but is silent about the delay in initiating the turn; and Mehm accused

Hosler at the time of the stop of weaving in and out of traffic.

{¶10} The arguments raised by Hosler do not so undermine the credibility of

Officer Mehm’s hearing testimony that we may overturn the municipal court’s finding that

there was a factual predicate for the stop. The dashcam video does not depict Hosler’s

vehicle striking the curb while turning but, as noted by the court, the video does not depict

Hosler making the turn at all. The dashcam faces forward and Mehm’s cruiser was two

vehicles behind Hosler’s vehicle. Hosler had completed the turn before the cruiser was

aimed in the same direction. Nonetheless, there is nothing to suggest that Mehm would

not have been able to see Hosler make the turn. The police report was not written by

Mehm but by another officer assisting in the traffic stop. While Hosler did not weave in

and out of his lane of traffic, the dashcam does depict Hosler drifting in his own lane and

striking the curb a second time (albeit after Mehm has activated the overhead lights and

initiated the stop). As there is competent, credible evidence that Mehm witnessed Hosler

strike the curb during the turn onto Euclid Avenue, we must accept the court’s

determination of the fact as true.

{¶11} The sole assignment of error is without merit.

{¶12} For the foregoing reasons, the denial of Hosler’s Motion to Suppress

Evidence is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the appellant.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2024-L-041