Cincinnati v. Nicholson
2013 Ohio 708
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- City of Cincinnati appeals suppression of Intoxilyzer 8000 results from Nicholson case.
- Nicholson arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence and tested at .176 BAC.
- Nicholson moved to suppress the Intoxilyzer results; trial court granted the motion.
- City contends Ohio Admin.Code 3701-53-04(B) requires a dry gas control test before and after every subject test.
- Trial court found noncompliance due to no dry gas test between Subject Test 1 and Subject Test 2.
- Appellate court held the rule requires dry gas before first and after second tests; reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of 3701-53-04(B) timing for dry gas tests | City argues compliance with before first and after second tests | Nicholson argues a test is required between tests | Plain language requires before first and after second; no between-test requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (mixed questions of law and fact in suppression review; defer to trial court for factual findings)
- State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477 (2007-Ohio-7066) (appellate de novo review of law in suppression context)
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (2007-Ohio-4163) (de novo review of statutory interpretation in suppression)
- State ex rel. Burrows v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 78 (1997-Ohio-) (plain-language rule for interpreting administrative regulations)
- Provident Bank v. Wood, 36 Ohio St.2d 101 (1973-Ohio-) (plain meaning governs when language clear)
- State v. Kormos, 2012-Ohio-3128 (2012-Ohio-3128) (dry gas test before Subject Test 1 and after Subject Test 2; no between test)