State v. Hendricks

── State v. Hendricks ── Court: Ohio Court of Appeals Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Thomas Osowik Category: General [Cite as State v. Hendricks, 2026-Ohio-1796.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio/City of Oregon Court of Appeals No. L-24-1216 Appellee Trial Court No. 23 TRC 19760203 v. Allexys Hendricks DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: May 15, 2026 ***** Melissa Purpura, Prosecutor, for appellee. April F. Campbell, for appellant. ***** OSOWIK, P.J., {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a July 11, 2024 judgment of the Oregon Municipal Court, denying appellant’s motion to suppress in the underlying OVI case. This appeal is centered upon the validity of appellant’s consent to a BAC test, given after conceding to having consumed alcohol and failing field sobriety tests. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court. {¶ 2} Appellant, Allexys Hendricks, sets forth the following assignment of error: “[Appellant’s] motion to suppress should have been granted because Officer Carlin’s implied consent notice was invalid. [Appellant] acquiesced[,] rather than consented[,] to a claim of lawful authority.” Case Background {¶ 3} The following facts are derived from the record of evidence presented to the trial court. On October 22, 2023, Officer Gabreyel Carlin (“Carlin”) of the Oregon Police Department was on duty on Navarre Ave. in Oregon. At 2:52 a.m., Carlin observed a vehicle traveling westbound that was not operating headlights, despite it being the middle of the night. Accordingly, Carlin began following the vehicle, and initiated a traffic stop. {¶ 4} Upon approaching the vehicle, Carlin detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from appellant, the driver of the vehicle. Central to our consideration of this case, Carlin’s patrol car dash camera, as well as the police station camera system, captured video footage of the communications between Carlin and appellant following the traffic stop, as well as subsequently at the police station, all of which has been carefully reviewed by this court in the course of reaching a determination in this case. {¶ 5} Upon initial questioning by Carlin, appellant conveyed that she was heading home from a party at the time of the stop, and acknowledged that she had consumed several Smirnoff alcoholic beverages at the party. 2.  {¶ 6} Given the detection of the odor of alcohol, and appellant’s acknowledgement of the consumption of alcohol, Carlin then administered field sobriety tests, which appellant failed. Following appellant’s failure of the field sobriety tests, Carlin explained to appellant that she would have the option of either consenting to take a BAC test, or refusing to take a BAC test, and explained the specific consequences of those choices. {¶ 7} In conjunction, Carlin advised appellant that, prior to making the choice, Carlin would read to appellant the form published by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles [BMV form 55] utilized by law enforcement in informing individuals faced with a BAC test of their options, consent or refusal, and of the corresponding consequences. {¶ 8} The video footage reflects that appellant next stated to Carlin, “I had a couple [of alcoholic drinks,] I’m not going to lie, I’m drunk . . .Am I going to have to stay the night in a drunk tank?. . .I might as well just blow [consent to the BAC test].” Carlin responded, “I can’t give you that advice [as to whether to consent to, or refuse, a BAC test]. . .I don’t need an answer right now. . .I have the whole thing that I’m going to read to you [BMV form 55].