Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Shindlergreen1 sentence2012Id. at 55, 57 . 17 In her memorandum in support of her motion to suppress, Ms. Codeluppi asserted that Officer Ryan Young requested that she perform the horizontal-gaze-nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-legged-stand test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Homan
green
2 sentences2005Appellant concludes that due to Trooper Altman's non-compliance with NHTSA standards, any evidence regarding the test results and Trooper Altman's observations should have been suppressed. {¶ 44} In State v. Homan (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , paragraph one of the syllabus, 2000-Ohio-212 , the Ohio Supreme Court held, "in order for the results of a field sobriety test to serve as evidence of probable cause to arrest, the police must have administered the test in strict compliance with standardized testing procedures." The Court reasoned that even minor deviations from standardized procedures can 2001Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the walk and turn test and the one-legged stand test as the tests were not administered in strict compliance as required by State v. Homan (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , and, therefore, should have been excluded. | 2 | 2001–2005 |
State v. Bissaillon, 06-Ca-130 (5-11-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2021Id. {¶ 35} Here, the record establishes that Lieutenant Patrick considered Hess’s “balance issues” before administering the walk and turn test and the one-legged stand test. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Thompson
neutral
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Codeluppi
green
1 sentence2014The dissenting judge stated: “Far from the motion to suppress in Zink, which broadly alleged violations of R.C. 4511.19(D), R.C. 4511.191(A)-(D), and OAC 3701-53-01 et seq., Ms.Codeluppi narrowly alleged that the officer had not conducted the horizontal-gaze-nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, or the one-legged-stand test in substantial compliance with NHTSA as required by R.C. 4511.19(D)(b)(4).” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Perl, Unpublished Decision (11-17-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2009State v. Pearl , Lake App. No. 2006-L-082, 2006-Ohio-6100 , ¶ 14 . {¶ 18} The state argues that the trial court erred by granting Way's motion to suppress the results of the one-legged-stand test and the walk-and-turn test because, even though Deputy Rhodes did not demonstrate the one-legged-stand test and a portion of the walk-and-turn test, the state still provided clear and convincing evidence of substantial compliance with NHTSA standards. {¶ 19} The NHTSA manual contains specific verbal instructions officers are taught to provide to the accused prior to conducting the one-legged-stand tes | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Homan
green
1 sentence2005Appellant concludes that due to Trooper Altman's non-compliance with NHTSA standards, any evidence regarding the test results and Trooper Altman's observations should have been suppressed. {¶ 44} In State v. Homan (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 421 , paragraph one of the syllabus, 2000-Ohio-212 , the Ohio Supreme Court held, "in order for the results of a field sobriety test to serve as evidence of probable cause to arrest, the police must have administered the test in strict compliance with standardized testing procedures." The Court reasoned that even minor deviations from standardized procedures can | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.