When a person is arrested for DUI/OVI in Ohio, the arresting officer generally asks the person to submit to a breath test. However, the breathalyzer machine sometimes does not function properly. Thus, Ohio also provides that officers can ask the person to submit to a urine or blood test.

For this test to be admissible, the test must be administered in compliance with Ohio Department of Health regulations. One regulation requires the refrigeration of blood samples. This regulation was the subject of a recent Ohio Supreme Court case, State v. Baker.

Facts

In Baker, the defendant was driving a vehicle and hit a pedestrian. Police responded to the scene and administered field sobriety tests. The defendant also provided a sample of blood to the police. The sample was placed into the officer’s cruiser, where it remained for more than 4 hours. Once it was sent to the crime lab, the blood sample was tested and determined to contain a blood alcohol level of 0.095, which is over the legal limit.

Baker filed a motion to suppress the blood test because the blood sample was not refrigerated in accordance with the Ohio Department of Health regulations. The trial court granted Baker’s motion and the court of appeals affirmed. The case was appealed by the prosecution to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Holding

The Ohio Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting the regulation regarding the refrigeration of blood samples. The regulation, 3701-53-05(F) of the Ohio Administrative code, states that “while not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” Specifically, the Court was asked to determine whether the failure to refrigerate a blood sample not in transit or under examination for a period of more than 4 hours constitutes substantial compliance with the regulation.

The Court first stated that blood tests do not need to strictly comply with the regulations. Only “substantial compliance” is required. This principle was created in previous cases, such as State v. Plummer, and was further developed in State v. Burnside, where the Court determined that substantial compliance is limited to errors which are “clearly de minimis.”

The Ohio Supreme Court held in this case that the failure to refrigerate Baker’s blood sample for more than 4 hours constituted substantial compliance. However, the Court never discussed why this lack of refrigeration for more than 4 hours was “clearly de minimus.”

The Court’s decision is troubling for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because they reached a conclusion regarding a scientific questions without any evidence to support their conclusion. Specifically, the Court is stating that the lack of refrigeration does not affect the accuracy of the measurement of alcohol in the blood, and does not support his opinion with any actual science.

Columbus and Delaware, Ohio DUI/OVI Attorney

If you have been charged with DUI/OVI in Columbus or Delaware, Ohio, contact Johnson Legal, LLC and speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney. Attorney David Johnson of Johnson Legal, LLC will discuss your case and assist you in fighting the charges. Call (614) 987-0192 or send an email to schedule a consultation regarding your DUI/OVI case.