 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Edwards12/7/2005
Criminal Procedure - Driving with prohibited concentration of alcohol - Pretrial suppression motion required to challenge admissibility of test results based on noncompliance with rules - Rules of Evidence inapplicable at suppression hearings.
Submitted April 27, 2005
{ } The Fifth District Court of Appeals has certified this case pursuant to Section 3(B)(4), Article IV, Ohio Constitution and App.R. 25. It found its judgment to be in conflict with the judgments of the Seventh District Court of Appeals in State v. Lake,151 Ohio App.3d 378, 2003-Ohio-332, 784 N.E.2d 162, and the Fourth District Court of Appeals in State v. Carter (Sept. 26, 2000), Ross App. No. 99CA2479, 2000 WL 1466189, on the following issue: "Whether the introduction into evidence of an unauthenticated copy of a calibration solution affidavit at a suppression hearing constitutes inadmissible hearsay." We respond to this question by holding that judicial officials at suppression hearings may rely on hearsay and other evidence to determine whether alcohol test results were obtained in compliance with methods approved by the Director of Health, even though that evidence may not be admissible at trial. Evid.R. 101(C)(1).
{ } On September 11, 2002, an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper stopped a vehicle driven by appellant, Rebekah Edwards. During the stop, he detected an odor of alcohol coming from Edwards. After conducting field sobriety tests and observing her physical condition, the trooper arrested her. Testing with a BAC DataMaster determined the concentration of alcohol in Edwards's breath to be .134 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. The trooper charged Edwards with driving under the influence of alcohol ("DUI") in violation of former R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and (3), now (A)(1)(a) and (d).
{ } Edwards moved to suppress the results of the BAC DataMaster test, asserting multiple grounds. In addition to claiming that the trooper had no basis to conduct field sobriety tests and that he failed to wait 20 minutes between test attempts, Edwards contended that the "solution calibration documents from the Ohio Department of Health are inadmissible."
{ } At a hearing on Edwards's motion in the New Philadelphia Municipal Court, the trooper identified a document as a photocopy of a certificate of approval by the Director of Health of an alcohol solution used to test the accuracy of the BAC DataMaster. The director has required that instruments used for breath testing be checked for accuracy no less frequently than once every seven days "using an instrument check solution containing ethyl alcohol approved by the director of health." Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-04(A)(2).
{ } Edwards asserted that the photocopied test-solution certificate was not authenticated, and she objected to the magistrate's consideration of it. In response, the prosecutor volunteered to retrieve the original certificate from the local patrol post.
{ } The prosecutor returned with a document he described as the original test-solution certificate, but it too was a photocopy, revealing the images of a handwritten May 28, 2002 date and the apparent signature of the Director of Health. It did not bear the original seal of the Department of Health or a statement certifying the director's signature as genuine, cf. Evid.R. 902(1) and (2), or a certification from an authorized person that the copy was correct, cf. Evid.R. 902(4). Edwards renewed her objection, arguing that the state needed "something from the Ohio Department of Health which says this is a true and accurate copy of the original which is on file which would then make that a self-authenticating document."
{ } The magistrate conc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|