 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Booth2/26/2003
Decision and Journal Entry
Appellant, Janella J. Booth, appeals the decision of the Medina Municipal Court, which found her guilty of operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. This court affirms.
I.
On April 21, 2001, appellant was arrested and cited for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol content, driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to stop at a red light, and failure to wear a safety belt.
The instrument check solution used to calibrate the BAC DataMaster in this case is known as lot number 00120, bottle number 437. According to the record, this solution was used from February 19, 2001, until it was discarded around May 14, 2001. The solution had a target value of .099, plus or minus .005.
On April 9, 2001, Sergeant Hill of the Ohio State Highway Patrol introduced bottle number 437 as the instrument check solution into the BAC DataMaster at the state highway patrol post and obtained a reading of .093. Sergeant Hill testified that he believed he received the reading, which was outside of the target value, in error because he did not allow the solution to reach 34 degrees plus or minus .2 degrees Celsius before he attempted to calibrate the machine. Therefore, Sergeant Hill waited approximately 25 minutes and introduced the same solution into the machine. The second time Sergeant Hill introduced the solution from bottle number 437, he obtained a reading of .095, which is within the target value plus or minus .005 of that solution. Sergeant Hill kept the .093 test result, but he did not fill out a separate instrument check form. Instead, Sergeant Hill stapled the BAC DataMaster evidence ticket to the back of the instrument check form for the .095 result.
On April 16, 2001, Sergeant Shirkey of the Ohio State Highway Patrol used the same bottle, number 437, and he obtained a reading of .095. Appellant took her breath test on April 21, 2001, and tested a .167. On April 23, 2001, Sergeant Shirkey did an instrument calibration test using bottle number 437 and received a result of .095.
On May 24, 2001, appellant filed a motion to suppress/motion in limine, claiming that the breathalyzer machine was not properly calibrated on April 9, 2001. The trial court denied appellant's motion. Appellant then pled no contest to the charge of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol content. The trial court accepted appellant's plea, found her guilty, and sentenced her accordingly.
Appellant timely appealed, setting forth two assignments of error for review.
II.
First Assignment of Error
"Whether the court erred in concluding that the senior officer had substantially complied with the procedures of the Ohio Administrative Code 3701-53-01(E) relating to record keeping of instrument checks when he failed to properly record and preserve an instrument check sheet?"
Second Assignment of Error
"Whether the court erred in concluding that the senior officer had substantially complied with the procedures of the Ohio Administrative Code 3701-53-04 relating to instrument checks when the senior officer failed to test the BAC Datamaster Breathalyzer machine with a new solution once the initial solution tested outside of the target range?"
Appellant combined her two assignments of error into one argument in her brief; therefore, they will be combined for purposes of this court's discussion.
In both assignments of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that Sergeant Hill substantially complied with the procedures set forth in the Ohio Administrative Code
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|