State v. McCleese, Unpublished Decision (7-16-2001)
State v. McCleese, Unpublished Decision (7-16-2001)
Opinion of the Court
First, appellant challenges the legality of the traffic stop. As a general matter, an officer's decision to stop an automobile is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment whenever the officer has "probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred." Whren v. United States
(1996),
Second, appellant argues that the trooper lacked probable cause to conduct a pat-down search of appellant. Upon speaking to appellant, the trooper observed behaviors that led him to believe that appellant was intoxicated and was not of legal drinking age. Before conducting a horizontal gaze nystagmus test in his patrol car, the trooper conducted a pat-down search of appellant. At a motion to suppress hearing, the trooper testified that he conducted "a pat down for weapons for my safety before I sat him [appellant] in my car."
The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that "[t]he driver of a motor vehicle may be subjected to a brief pat-down search for weapons where the detaining officer has a lawful reason to detain said driver in a patrol car." State v. Evans (1993),
The motion to suppress was properly denied and the assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
YOUNG, P.J., and WALSH, J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.