| 10/12/2026 |
Paid $100.00 receipt# 2026432943 paid by ADALBERTO TORRES CARDONA 109874 |
| 9/9/2026 |
Case sent to BCI&I on 09092026 |
| 9/9/2026 |
Case sent to BCI&I on 09092026 |
| 9/9/2026 |
Case sent to BCI&I on 09092026 |
| 9/3/2026 |
Paid $600.00 receipt# 2026428716 paid by ADALBERTO TORRES CARDONA |
| 8/25/2026 |
PAY AGREEMENT FINANCIAL SANCT Issued |
| 8/25/2026 |
STATUS CONFERENCE set for 10/26/2026 at 09:00 AM in room 1 by JUDGE ALAN D HACKENBERG |
| 8/25/2026 |
ALS Disposition Issued |
| 8/25/2026 |
This matter comes on for consideration of the Defendant's Appeal of Administrative License Suspension imposed by the arresting officer on 02/22/2026 pursuant to Ohio Revised Code 4511.191(H). Upon consideration thereof, the Court finds that the Defendant has established sufficient grounds to terminate his/her administrative license suspension.It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Administrative License Suspension which was imposed on 02/22/2026 shall terminate immediately.It is further ORDERED that the Defendant's driving privileges are restored immediately, and this entry shall serve as authorization to operate a motor vehicle until such time as his license is reinstated by the Registrar of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. |
| 8/25/2026 |
Granting ALS Appeal Issued |
| 8/25/2026 |
ALS Ordered Terminated |
| 8/25/2026 |
Plea of GUILTY entered on 08/25/2026 |
| 8/25/2026 |
Charge Amended from 4511.194 PHYSICAL CONTROL M1 0 points to 4511.194 PHYSICAL CONTROL M1 0 points by on 08/25/2026 |
| 8/25/2026 |
Plea of NO PLEA entered on 08/25/2026 |
| 8/25/2026 |
Plea of NO PLEA entered on 08/25/2026 |
| 8/25/2026 |
Confinement Jail Time Sentenced 30 Day(s) 7 Credited 23 Suspended |
| 8/25/2026 |
Finding of GUILTY entered for 4511.194 - PHYSICAL CONTROL |
| 8/25/2026 |
DIP Referral Issued |
| 8/25/2026 |
The defendant appeared in open court and was advised of the nature of the charge, possible penalties, right to counsel, right to jury/court trial, other rights and the various pleas available.The defendant thereafter entered a plea of GUILTY to the charge. The Court heard evidence from the prosecution to substantiate the charge. The court entered a finding of GUILTY to the charge.It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the defendant is found GUILTY of PHYSICAL CONTROLORC/CO 4511.194, and is sentenced as follows:1) A fine of $650.00 plus all costs 2) A jail sentence of 30 Day(s) with 23 Day(s) suspended consecutive to be scheduled by the Clerk's office. The defendant is ordered to pay all costs of confinement in a jail or other residential facility pursuant to ORC 2929.28, including but not limited to, a per diem fee for room and board in the jail of up to $98.00 per day, and any other costs provided by statute.
3) Defendant shall attend and successfully complete a driver's intervention program, and pursue any recommended course of treatment, for which he/she will receive 5 Day(s) of jail credit.
4) No 6 point violations and/or DUS offenses for 1 Year(s).
5) No repetition for 1 Year(s).
6) Defendant shall attend Victims Impact Panel program at the next regularly scheduled date for which he/she will receive 2 Day(s) jail credit. |
| 8/25/2026 |
VIP Referral Issued |
| 8/25/2026 |
Finding of DISM COSTS/DEF entered for 4511.21C - SPEED |
| 8/25/2026 |
TC Journal half sheet Issued |
| 8/25/2026 |
It is ORDERED by the Court that this matter be DISM COSTS/DEF. |
| 8/25/2026 |
Finding of DISM COSTS/DEF entered for 4511.19A1D - OVI-BREATH |
| 8/25/2026 |
TC Journal half sheet Issued |
| 8/25/2026 |
It is ORDERED by the Court that this matter be DISM COSTS/DEF. |
| 8/19/2026 |
Assignment Notice File Issued |
| 8/19/2026 |
Plea set for 08/25/2026 at 02:30 PM in room 1 by JUDGE ALAN D HACKENBERG |
| 8/18/2026 |
PT Report Issued |
| 8/18/2026 |
Recommendation: Pre-Trial held. SET FOR PLEA. Time limits pursuant to ORC 2945.71-73 are hereby waived without limitation. |
| 7/13/2026 |
Assignment Notice File Issued |
| 7/13/2026 |
Pre-Trial with Judge set for 08/18/2026 at 10:45 AM in room 1 by JUDGE ALAN D HACKENBERG |
| 7/10/2026 |
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT, FINDLAY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO CASE NO.: 26TRC01100
JUDGE HACKENBERG
VS. DECISION AND
JUDGMENT ENTRY
ADALBERTO TORRES CARDONA
______________________________________/
This matter came before the Court on April 14, 2026, upon the Motion to Suppress filed on behalf of the Defendant. Present before the Court were the State of Ohio, represented by Assistant Law Director Elliott T. Werth and at the time, Certified Legal Intern Cole Thomas, and the Defendant, represented by attorney Kyle J. Phillips. Based on the Motion to Suppress and arguments presented, the Defendant raises the following issues: whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant, whether the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to detain the Defendant to investigate him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or probable cause to arrest the Defendant, whether the Defendant made any statements in violation of “Miranda” and whether the breath testing machine was “properly calibrated and in proper working order”. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented and having considered the applicable law, the Court FINDS and ORDERS as follows:
On or about February 22, 2026, at approximately 3:17 am, the Defendant was operating a motor vehicle on Trenton Avenue in the City of Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio. The Defendant was observed operating his vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour and was stopped by Trooper Bowers of the Ohio State Highway Patrol. The Defendant was subsequently arrested for Operating a Vehicle while Under the Influence of Alcohol.
The Defendant raises several issues in his motion to suppress. Defendant asserts that the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop him. The Defendant also alleges the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to continue the traffic stop to administer field sobriety tests and lacked probable cause to arrest. Defendant further alleges the Defendant’s statements were obtained in violation of Miranda. Finally, the Defendant alleges the breath test machine was not properly calibrated and in proper working order and therefore the test results are unreliable.
As to the Defendant’s first assertion that the officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop him, the State of Ohio argues the Defendant exceeded the posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour by travelling 43 miles per hour when he was observed by Trooper Bowers.
“In order to initiate a constitutionally permissible traffic stop, law enforcement must, at a minimum, have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed or is being committed.” State v. Powell, 2022-Ohio-882, ¶10 (3d Dist.) (2022), quoting State v. Smith, 2018-Ohio-1444, 110 N.E.3d 944, ¶ 8 (3d Dist.), citing State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991). “A police officer may initiate a traffic stop after witnessing a traffic violation.” Powell at ¶10.
In this case, Trooper Bowers testified that he observed the Defendant operating his vehicle westbound on Trenton Avenue in the City of Findlay, Ohio. Trooper Bowers stated the Defendant’s vehicle appeared to be travelling greater than the posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Based on his visual observation, Trooper Bowers testified that he activated his radar unit and obtained a speed readout of 43 miles per hour on the Defendant’s vehicle. After obtaining this speed readout of Defendant’s vehicle, Trooper Bowers initiated a traffic stop on the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, based on the Defendant’s traffic violation of exceeding the speed limit, Trooper Bowers had a sufficient reasonable, articulable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop and stop the Defendant.
The next issue raised by the Defendant relates to whether the officers had a sufficient reasonable articulable suspicion to further detain the Defendant to investigate him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and probable cause to arrest him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. As part of this broader issue, the Defendant challenges the standardized field sobriety tests on the grounds they were not administered in substantial compliance with the rules and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 4511.19(D)(4)(b).
The Third District Court of Appeals recently had occasion to visit this very issue in State v. Carpenter, 2023-Ohio-1702. In Carpenter, Id., the Court set forth the following detailed analysis to determine whether an officer was justified in detaining and subsequently arresting an individual for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol:
Once a driver has been lawfully stopped, an officer may not administer field sobriety tests unless the invasion of privacy is separately justified by a reasonable suspicion based upon articulable facts that the motorist is impaired. See, e.g., State v. Schriml, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-12-32, 2013-Ohio-2845, ¶ 25. Importantly, reasonable suspicion does not require an officer to observe and relate overt signs of intoxication. Cleveland v. Martin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105420, 2018-Ohio-740, ¶ 14. Rather, “[a] court will analyze the reasonableness of the request based on the totality of the circumstances, viewed through the eyes of a reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” Cleveland v. Maxwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104964, 2017-Ohio-4442, ¶ 20, citing State v. Dye, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2001-P-0140, 2002-Ohio-7158, ¶ 18; State v. Cromes, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-06-07, 2006-Ohio-6924, ¶ 38, citing United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744 (2002).
Circumstances from which an officer may derive a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the detained driver was operating the vehicle while under the influence include, but are not limited to:
(1) the time and day of the stop (Friday or Saturday night as opposed to, e.g., Tuesday morning); (2) the location of the stop (e.g., whether near establishments selling alcohol); (3) any indicia of erratic driving before the stop that may indicate a lack of coordination (speeding, weaving, unusual braking, etc.); (4) whether there is a cognizable report that the driver may be intoxicated; (5) the condition of the suspect’s eyes (bloodshot, glassy, glazed, etc.); (6) impairments of the suspect’s ability to speak (slurred speech, overly deliberate speech, etc.); (7) the odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car, or, more significantly, on the suspect’s person or breath; (8) the intensity of that odor, as described by the officer (“very strong,” “strong,” “moderate,” “slight,” etc.); (9) the suspect’s demeanor (belligerent, uncooperative, etc.); (10) any actions by the suspect after the stop that might indicate a lack of coordination (dropping keys, falling over, fumbling for a wallet, etc.); and (11) the suspect’s admission of alcohol consumption, the number of drinks had, and the amount of time in which they were consumed, if given.
State v. Schriml, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-12-32, ¶ 26, citing State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56, 63, fn. 2 (11th Dist.1998). “We do not view any single factor in isolation.” State v. Null, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-19-50, 2020-Ohio-3222, ¶ 19, citing State v. Macklin, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 17-CA-39, 2018-Ohio-2975, ¶ 28.
Carpenter, supra at ¶7 and ¶8.
Taking these factors and guidance into consideration, the Court turns to the evidence that was presented during the hearing. Trooper Bowers was the only witness to testify. He was subject to cross-examination. In addition to the previous testimony regarding the reason for stopping the Defendant, Trooper Bowers testified in regard to the detention and subsequent arrest of the Defendant for Operating a Vehicle while Under the Influence of Alcohol.
Trooper Bowers testified that upon stopping the Defendant, he approached the Defendant’s vehicle and made contact with the Defendant, who was the only occupant of the vehicle. During the initial contact with the Defendant at the Defendant’s vehicle, he noted a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle along with the Defendant’s bloodshot and glossy eyes. Trooper Bower asked the Defendant if he had anything to drink and the Defendant replied, “not a lot”.
The Court notes that several factors that are often present with an impaired driver are not present in this case. See State v. Schriml, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-12-32, ¶ 26, citing State v. Evans, 127 Ohio App.3d 56, 63, fn. 2 (11th Dist.1998). However, they are not required to be present for every impaired driver case. The Court recognized in Carpenter, “we emphasize that not every OVI investigation is going to have the same indicators of impairment, which is why the totality of the circumstances must be considered (emphasis added). Carpenter, ¶17, supra. With that guidance in mind, and the evidence before the Court, it is apparent that Trooper Bowers possessed sufficient reasonable suspicion and was justified in detaining the Defendant further to conduct an impaired driver investigation.
As part of the Defendant’s argument that Trooper Bowers did not have sufficient probable cause to arrest the Defendant, the Defendant urges this Court to suppress the standardized field sobriety tests administered by Trooper Bowers. Specifically, the Defendant alleges the standardized field sobriety tests were not administered in substantial compliance with the rules and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as required by R.C. §4511.19 (D)(4)(b).
“[T]he results of the field sobriety tests are not admissible at trial unless the state shows by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with NHTSA guidelines.” State v. Aldridge, 3d Dist. No. 9-13-54, 2014-Ohio-4537, 2014 WL 5141552 at ¶16, citing State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165, 2014–Ohio–1574, 10 N.E.3d 691, ¶ 11. “It is only logical that in order to prove substantial compliance with a given standard, there must be at minimum some evidence of the applicable standard for comparative purposes. Accordingly, where the suppression motion raises specific challenges to the field sobriety tests, the state must produce some evidence of the testing standards, be it through testimony or via introduction of the NHTSA or other similar manual or both.” State v. Kitzler, 3d. Dist. No. 16-11-03, 2011-Ohio-5444, 2011 WL 5029024, ¶13, quoting State v. Bish, 191 Ohio App.3d 661, 2010-Ohio-6604, 947 N.E.2d 257, ¶27-28.
Trooper Bowers testified that he administered all three of the standardized field sobriety tests according to his training and the 2023 NHTSA manual. The State further admitted the 2023 NHTSA manual into evidence to provide the Court with the testing standards. Trooper Bowers testified that he obtained 6 clues of 6 possible clues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test from the Defendant. He also testified he received 6 clues on the Walk and Turn test and two clues on the One Leg Stand test from the Defendant.
On cross-examination, Defense counsel questioned Trooper Bowers on the potential issue of reflecting emergency lights from his cruiser during the HGN test. Trooper Bowers stated he had the Defendant face away from his cruiser to avoid the glare and flashing emergency lights. Defense counsel also questioned Trooper Bowers about the brief pause during his passes when he administered the HGN test. Trooper Bowers stated he didn’t pause during the tests, at which point an objection was made by the State of Ohio. Once the objection was overruled, Defense counsel never returned to the question about a potential pause during Trooper Bowers passes.
Defense counsel further questioned Trooper Bowers about the Defendant indicating he was cold during the administration of the standardized field sobriety tests. Specifically, Defense counsel asked if Trooper Bowers took into consideration the Defendant being cold when he was being administered the test. Trooper Bowers stated he did not as he did not see any indicia of someone feeling cold being exhibited by the Defendant.
Accordingly, the Court finds that based on the testimony and evidence provided to the Court, including the 2023 NHTSA manual with the testing standards, that there is clear and convincing evidence to establish that Trooper Bowers did conduct tests on the Defendant in substantial compliance with NHTSA.
The final issue raised by the Defendant is whether the breath testing machine was properly calibrated and in proper working order and maintained in compliance with the Ohio Department of Health regulations. While the State of Ohio was properly put on notice of this challenge by the Defendant, the State of Ohio only offered the testimony of Trooper Bowers. Trooper Bowers testified that he administered the breath test to the Defendant on the post’s Intox DMT machine and that the Defendant’s result was .134 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
He further stated that he is not a senior operator as defined by the Ohio Administrative Code. Trooper Bowers testified that he administered 3 samples to the Defendant, consisting of two breaths each, totaling 6. Trooper Bowers stated he received a purge fail error on one sample and a .02 error on another sample. Trooper Bowers testified that he believed the Defendant caused both errors.
During cross-examination by Defense counsel, Trooper Bowers again stated he was not a senior operator nor was he was an Ohio Department of Health certified inspector of this type of machine. Trooper Bowers further stated that he could not say if the Intox DMT was properly calibrated and that he was not able to say if the Intox DMT was in proper working order on the day the Defendant submitted to the breath test.
Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3701-53-03 lists the approved alcohol breath testing machines and the Intox DMT is approved under section (A)(4) of that Rule. OAC Rule 3701-53-05 (C) sets forth the requirements for Intox DMT machine. Specifically, it states:
(C) For the instrument listed under paragraph (A)(4) of rule 3701-53-03 of the Administrative Code:
(1) The instrument shall perform a dry gas control using a dry gas standard traceable to the national institute of standards and technology (NIST) before and after every subject test.
(2) A subject test includes the collection of two breath samples. A dry gas control is not required between the two breath samples.
(3) Dry gas control results are valid when the results are at or within five one-thousandths (0.005) grams per two hundred ten liters of the target alcohol concentration on the manufacturer's certificate of analysis for that dry gas standard, adjusted for atmospheric pressure at the time of the test, as indicated on the subject test report.
(4) A dry gas control result which is outside the range specified on the test report will abort the subject test or instrument certification in progress.
(5) Senior operators shall perform an instrument certification according to the instrument display using a solution containing ethyl alcohol approved by the director. A dry gas control using a dry gas standard traceable to the national institute of standards and technology (NIST) shall also be used when a certification is performed. An instrument in service shall be certified no less frequently than once every three hundred sixty-five days or when the dry gas standard on the instrument is replaced, whichever comes first. Instrument certifications are valid when the certification results are at or within five one-thousandths (0.005) grams per two hundred ten liters of the target value for that approved solution. Instruments with certification results outside the range specified in this paragraph will require the issue to be remediated and a successful certification completed, or the instrument to be removed from service until the instrument is serviced or repaired.
(6) Instruments may be networked by law enforcement agencies if the software is purchased from the instrument manufacturer.
OAC Rule 3701-53-08 (C) states that “A senior operator shall be responsible for the care, maintenance and certification or instrument checks of the approved evidential breath testing instruments listed in paragraphs A(1),(2),(3),(4) and (5) of rule 3701-53-03 of the Administrative Code.”
As Trooper Bowers testified, he is not a senior operator. The State of Ohio did not call any other witnesses to testify. There is no testimony before the Court of a senior operator who performed the instrument certification of the Intox DMT.
Therefore, the Court finds that the State of Ohio has not met its burden and has not established that the breath testing machine was properly checked by an authorized and qualified person as required by Rule 3701-53-3, Rule 3701-53-05 and Rule 3701-53-08 of the Ohio Administrative Code. As such, any and all evidence of the Defendant’s breath test results are SUPPRESSED.
Accordingly, as to the first part of the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress in regards to whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant and whether the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to detain the Defendant to investigate him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or probable cause to arrest the Defendant, the Motion is OVERRULED. As to Defendant allegation of a violation of his “Miranda” rights, there was no testimony or evidence provided to the Court during the hearing to support this allegation. Therefore, the Court finds there is no violation of the Defendant’s “Miranda” rights and the Defendant’s Motion as to that issue is OVERRULED.
As to the second part of the Defendant’s Motion to suppress as to whether the breath testing machine was “properly calibrated and the solution properly maintained”, the Motion is GRANTED.
This matter shall be scheduled for a Jury Trial along with a Final Pre-Trial conference between the parties and the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED, Judge Alan D. Hackenberg
Proof of Service
I hereby certify that true and accurate copies of the foregoing Decision and Judgment Entry were served upon Asst. Law Director Elliott T. Werth and Asst. Law Director Cole Thomas and Attorney Kyle J. Phillips on the 10th day of July 2026.
|
| 5/11/2026 |
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S BRIEF REGARDING TESTIMONY FOR BREATH TEST FILED BY DEFT'S ATTY BY FAX |
| 4/28/2026 |
STATES BRIEF REGARDING REQUIRED TESTIMONY FOR BREATH TEST FILED BY PROS OFFICE ON 4/27/26 |
| 4/16/2026 |
SUBPOENA FOR TROOPER BOWERS RETURNED BY BLF WITH $8.50 SERVICE FEE |
| 4/15/2026 |
EXHIBITS #799 LOGGED W/BLF |
| 4/13/2026 |
self referral RECD COMPLIANCE REPORT DEF COMPLETED DIP WITH NO FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS |
| 4/8/2026 |
SUBPOENA FILED BY PROS FOR TROOPER BOWERS ISSUED TO BLF FOR SERVICE. |
| 4/1/2026 |
Assignment Notice File Issued |
| 4/1/2026 |
Suppression set for 04/14/2026 at 09:30 AM in room 1 by JUDGE ALAN D HACKENBERG |
| 4/1/2026 |
MOTION TO SUPPRESS SET FOR HEARING by ALAN D HACKENBERG JUDGE on 04/01/2026 |
| 4/1/2026 |
Written MOTION TO SUPPRESS filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 04/01/2026 |
| 4/1/2026 |
PT Report Issued |
| 4/1/2026 |
Recommendation: Pre-Trial held. SET FOR HEARING ON MOTION. Time limits pursuant to ORC 2945.71-73 are hereby waived without limitation. |
| 3/23/2026 |
self referral RECD COMPLIANCE REPORT FROM FOCUS DEF COMPLETED VIP ON MARCH 22 2026 |
| 3/5/2026 |
PER THE ATTACHED ORDER, YOU ARE HEREWITH NOTIFIED TO PRESERVE THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND OR VIDEO/AUDIO TAPES SO DESCRIBED, REGARDING THE FOLLOWING ARREST:
NAME: ADALBERTO E TORRES-CARDONA
DOB: 08/13/2000
DATE OF ARREST: 02/22/2026
ARRESTING OFFICER: TPR. J. BOWERS
PLEASE PRESERVE THE FOLLOWING:
1. ALL VIDEO AND AUDIO TAPPED RECORDINGS MADE OF THE DEFENDANT PRIOR TO, AT THE TIME, OR SUBSEQUENT TO HIS ARREST ON FEBRUARY 22, 2026.
2. ALL TAPE RECORDINGS OF RADIO TRANSMISSIONS MADE TO AND FROM ANY POLICE OFFICER, INCLUDING, BUT LIMITED TO, MOBILE AND HAND HELD RADIO TRANSMISSIONS.
3. ALL TAPE RECORDINGS OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS MADE BY DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF, OR SUBSEQUENT TO HIS ARREST WHILE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY.
4. ALL LOG BOOKS AND OTHER RECORDS RELATING TO RADIO TRANSMISSIONS AND/OR TELEPHONE CALLS MADE TO OR FROM ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
5. ALL FIELD NOTES OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER.
IF THE TAPES ARE NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF YOUR OFFICE, PLEASE NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS ORDER.
SIGNED JUDGE ALAN D HACKENBERG
|
| 3/5/2026 |
REQUEST FOR VIDEO AND PRESERVE THE AUDIO AND/OR VIDEO GRANTED by ALAN D HACKENBERG JUDGE on 03/05/2026 (SEE JUDGMENT ENTRY) |
| 3/5/2026 |
MOTION FOR STAY OF ALS SUSPENSION GRANTED by ALAN D HACKENBERG JUDGE on 03/05/2026 |
| 3/4/2026 |
ALS Disposition Issued |
| 3/4/2026 |
This matter comes on this day 03/04/2026 concerning the Administrative License Suspension imposed against the Defendant. For the good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Administrative License Suspension be STAYED until further order of the Court. |
| 3/4/2026 |
Stay of ALS Issued |
| 2/25/2026 |
DEFT APPEARED FOR FINGER PRINTING ON 02/24/2026 AT 1000 HRS FILED BY FPD (SOURS) |
| 2/24/2026 |
PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT WERNER ENTERPRISES INC FILED BY DEFT'S ATTY VIA FAX |
| 2/24/2026 |
Written MOTION FOR STAY OF ALS SUSPENSION filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
Written MOTION filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 02/24/2026 (WAIVER OF THE HEARING UNTIL AFTER THE PRE-TRIAL.) |
| 2/24/2026 |
Written MOTION FOR ALS APPEAL filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
Written REQUEST FOR VIDEO AND PRESERVE THE AUDIO AND/OR VIDEO filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
Written WAIVOR OF STATUTORY TIME LIMITATION filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
Written DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
Written REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
Written WRITTEN PLEA OF NOT GUILTY filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
THOMAS A ROOF filed notice of appearance |
| 2/24/2026 |
PTS ASSESSMENT JE Issued |
| 2/24/2026 |
Finger Print Requirements Issued |
| 2/24/2026 |
Assignment Notice File Issued |
| 2/24/2026 |
Pre-Trial set for 04/01/2026 at 10:15 AM in room 203 by JUDGE ALAN D HACKENBERG |
| 2/24/2026 |
Plea of NOT GUILTY entered on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
Plea of NOT GUILTY entered on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
Plea of NOT GUILTY entered on 02/24/2026 |
| 2/24/2026 |
This matter came on for consideration this day 02/24/2026. The defendant appeared in open court and was advised of the charge, penalty, available pleas, and legal rights. The Defendant waived his right to counsel and entered a plea of NOT GUILTY.Further, the defendant requested this matter be set for a pre-trial conference, pursuant to criminal rule 17.1.It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this matter be continued and scheduled for a pre-trial conference, and that the delay be charged against the Defendant pursuant to Revised Code 2945.72(e).It is further ordered that the defendant be released upon signing/posting of OR BOND , and further upon the condition(s) as stated on the bond.Placed on Pre-trial Supervision: Must report to the Probation department immediately after court. Defendant is subject to any additional conditions deemed appropriate by the Court and Probation Department.Not to Consume or Possess Alcohol and/or Drugs of abuse during the pendency of the case.The Defendant shall immediately report to the Clerk of Court to be scheduled for fingerprinting in compliance with ORC 109.60. The Defendant shall be fingerprinted within 24 hours of this Order. |
| 2/24/2026 |
JE Continuance Issued |
| 2/24/2026 |
PERSONAL APPEARANCE RECOG Issued |
| 2/24/2026 |
PROOF OF INSURANCE PROGRESSIVE 12-20-25 TO 06-20-26 FILED BY DEFT'S ATTY VIA FAX |
| 2/23/2026 |
Arraignment set for 02/24/2026 at 08:30 AM in room 202 |
| 2/23/2026 |
Case Filed on 02/23/2026 |