COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72322 CITY OF LYNDHURST Plaintiff-appellee JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND ARTHUR C. BRICKEL OPINION Defendant-appellant DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 28, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal appeal from Lyndhurst Municipal Court, Case No. 96- TRC-09236AB JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: IRL D. RUBIN, ESQ. LAWRENCE R. HUPERTZ, ESQ. City Prosecutor 925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1995 35401 Euclid Avenue, Suite 101 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Willoughby, Ohio 44094 -2- KARPINSKI, J.: Defendant-appellant Arthur Brickel appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence following his conviction for operating his motor vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol and with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration. On July 22, 1996, defendant ate dinner at Tasty Pizza on Mayfield Road in the City of Lyndhurst. He ordered and drank from a large bottle of wine. The owner, Joe Woyotovich, called 911 as defendant left the store. Woyotovich informed the police dispatcher that defendant was kind of inebriated and drunk. (Tr. 7, 9, 21.) Defendant couldn't walk and spilled wine on his clothes. Lyndhurst police officer Jeff Traci testified that he was serving as dispatcher that evening. He stated that he knew Joe, recognized his voice, and was aware that Joe had made at least two reliable calls prior to this incident. (Tr. 84-86.) The officer stated Joe reported a highly intoxicated white male, wearing a gray t-shirt, was leaving the restaurant. Joe stated he was concerned that the individual would attempt to drive away and that he believed defendant had a Bronco. Within one minute of the emergency telephone call, three uniformed police officers responded to the restaurant. When the police arrived, they observed defendant in his black Ford Bronco as he drove in reverse for several feet and then returned to his parking space. Officers Michael Muzychenko and David Stasshofer testified that they approached the only black sport utility vehicle -3- in the parking lot outside the restaurant. (Tr. 39-40, 65.) The officers learned from a police radio broadcast that this was the type of vehicle the intoxicated male might be driving. They testified that defendant had difficulty standing after he was asked to step out of his vehicle. Mumbling and glassy-eyed, he appeared puzzled. Further, they smelled alcohol about defendant's person and noticed food stains on his clothing. Failing field sobriety tests, defendant was placed under arrest. Subsequent testing revealed he had a breath alcohol concentration of .26. Defendant was found guilty of both charges in the Lyndhurst Municipal Court and timely appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant's sole assignment of error follows: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE APPELLANT- DEFENDANT BY DENYING HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM AN ILLEGAL, WARRANTLESS STOP, SEARCH, SEIZURE, AND ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE THEREFOR. This assignment lacks merit. Defendant contends that all evidence obtained from him must be suppressed because the telephone tip which led to his arrest was too general and did not provide a sufficient basis for the stop. Counsel for plaintiff did not file a brief on appeal and failed to appear at the scheduled oral argument. It is well established, however, that police may conduct a brief investigative stop of an individual when an officer has a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that the individual stopped is engaged in criminal activity. State v. Blagg(Mar. 7, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APC07-1074, unreported at pp. 2-3, citing Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1; State v. Oney -4- (Feb. 15, 1995), Hamilton App. Nos. C-940332 and C-940333, unreported. Reasonable suspicion need not be based solely on the officer's personal observation and may be based on information provided by a citizen. Beachwood v. Sims (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 9, 14; State v. Antill (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 589. The facts of the case at bar are strikingly similar to those in State v. Blagg and State v. Oney, supra. In both Blagg and Oney, drunk drivers drove through fast food restaurant drive-thrus and parked their vehicles in the parking lot to eat their meals. The restaurant employees who served the drivers called 911 to inform the police of what they had learned. The police responded to the scene to investigate. In each case, the appellate court reversed the municipal court's suppression of the evidence obtained by the police after responding to the scene. The Blagg and Oney Courts specifically found that the telephone calls by the citizens provided a sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify the initial investigation. Although the informant in Blagg provided the license plate number of the vehicle and a complete description of the driver, it was more difficult to gauge the reliability of the information because the informant was anonymous. Not only was the informant in Oney anonymous, but he also did not provide license plate information to the police. In the case at bar, however, the informant was not anonymous. The dispatcher knew him, recognized his voice, and was aware from at least two prior occasions that he provided reliable information. -5- Although the informant did not provide a license plate number, defendant's black sport utility vehicle was easily identified because it was the only vehicle of that type in the parking lot when the officers arrived within seconds of the emergency call. Accord S tate v. Antill, supra; State v. Loop (Mar. 14, 1994), Scioto App. No. 93CA2153, unreported at p. 3. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had a sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify further investigation of defendant, who was stopped in the parking lot when they arrived. The officers observations and defendant's subsequent failure of the field sobriety tests provided sufficient probable cause to arrest him for operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration. Accordingly, defendant's sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. -6- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Lyndhurst Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. O'DONNELL, P.J., and JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .