The Ohio Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop involving Kori Caughenbaugh. The ruling, issued on September 25, 2026, has significant implications for how police conduct traffic stops and the admissibility of evidence in DUI cases.
This case began when Ohio State Highway Patrol Sergeant Joshua Carte stopped Caughenbaugh on November 15, 2024, after allegedly observing her cross the double yellow center line. Caughenbaugh was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. However, she filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull her over. The case was filed under docket number 2026 CA 00037.
The initial hearing took place on February 11, 2025, where the trial court reviewed dashcam footage and heard testimony from Sergeant Carte. Although he testified that he observed Caughenbaugh's vehicle cross the double yellow line, the dashcam video did not clearly show this violation. The video was dark and difficult to interpret due to weather conditions, which led the trial court to question the credibility of the officer's testimony.
On March 7, 2025, the trial court granted Caughenbaugh's motion to suppress, stating that the evidence was insufficient to establish that a traffic violation occurred. The court emphasized that when video evidence does not support the officer's testimony, it raises doubts about the legality of the stop. The State of Ohio appealed this decision, but the appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling, arguing that it had not given appropriate weight to the officer's testimony.
After the case was remanded, the trial court again granted the motion to suppress, stating that there was insufficient credible evidence to justify the stop. The court reiterated that it found Sergeant Carte's testimony not credible, especially when compared to the dashcam footage. The trial court noted, "The prosecution failed to establish that there was either probable cause or even a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the stop." This led to a second appeal from the State.
In its latest ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence. The court stated, "Without the officer’s testimony, there is nothing to support the traffic stop." The judges emphasized that the trial court was in the best position to evaluate witness credibility and determine the facts of the case. They concluded that the officer's unrefuted testimony, when not supported by video evidence, did not meet the legal standard required for a lawful traffic stop.
This ruling has significant implications for future traffic stops and DUI cases in Ohio. It reinforces the importance of credible evidence and the need for police officers to have clear justification for traffic stops. The decision also highlights the role of dashcam footage in evaluating the legality of police actions. If dashcam evidence contradicts an officer's testimony, as it did in this case, it may lead to the suppression of evidence and potentially dismiss charges against defendants.
The outcome of this case may influence how law enforcement agencies train officers regarding traffic stops and the importance of maintaining accurate records and evidence. It may also encourage more scrutiny of police practices, particularly in cases involving DUI arrests.
Looking ahead, the State of Ohio could potentially appeal this decision to a higher court, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any plans for further legal action. The case may also set a precedent for similar cases involving traffic stops and the admissibility of evidence in Ohio.