In State v. Filchock (2006), 166 Ohio App. 3d 611, 2006 Ohio 2242, at P63, 852 N.E.2d 759, the arresting officer did not personally observe the defendant operate the vehicle while under the influence. Instead, the officer in Filchock found the defendant's license plate at the crash scene and went to the defendant's home to question him about the accident. The officer observed the defendant's damaged truck and noticed that the defendant smelled of alcohol, that his speech and walk were slow and deliberate, and that his eyes were bloodshot. The defendant refused to submit to field sobriety tests. Nevertheless, based on his years of experience in arresting individuals under the influence, the officer arrested the defendant. Based on these facts, we found that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant. Consequently, we upheld the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress.