State v. Baker (Slip Opinion)
146 Ohio St. 3d 456
| Ohio | 2016Background
- In March 2011 Trooper Emery obtained two blood tubes from Michael Baker (after Baker consented) and kept them in his cruiser; the tubes were mailed to the state lab about 4 hours 10 minutes after collection. Laboratory GC testing later showed a 0.095% blood-alcohol concentration.
- Baker was charged with operating with a prohibited BAC under R.C. 4511.19 and moved pretrial to suppress the blood-test results for failure to refrigerate the specimen while not in transit or under examination, contrary to Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F).
- The trial court granted suppression, finding the failure to refrigerate was not de minimis.
- The court of appeals affirmed suppression in a divided ruling.
- The state appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which considered whether the ~4 hour 10 minute pretransit unrefrigerated interval constituted substantial compliance and whether, if substantial compliance is shown, the defendant must be given an opportunity to prove prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ~4 hr 10 min failure to refrigerate before transit violates Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F) (substantial compliance) | Plummer/Mayl allow up to ~5 hrs unrefrigerated; this interval is de minimis and substantially complies | Failure to refrigerate was noncompliant; trooper could have refrigerated sample; state offered no expert to show no effect on reliability | Failure to refrigerate for 4 hr 10 min is a de minimis error and constitutes substantial compliance (state meets burden to create presumption of admissibility) |
| Burden and procedure once substantial compliance is shown | Once state shows substantial compliance, presumption of admissibility arises and defendant must be allowed to show prejudice | Defendant must be permitted to prove that noncompliance affected test reliability before results admitted | Clarifies Burnside burden-shifting: state must show substantial compliance; then defendant may rebut by showing prejudice/unreliability at trial court level |
| Proper remedy in this case | Admit results unless defendant demonstrates prejudice | Suppress because trial court found non-de minimis error and state did not prove reliability | Reversed appellate judgment; remanded to trial court for Baker to attempt to rebut presumption of admissibility (show prejudice) |
| Role of Adm.Code and scope of judicial deference | Prior cases permit limited de minimis deviations; practical considerations may justify modest deviations | Courts should enforce ODH rules strictly; agency guidance needed to avoid judicially created bright lines | Court follows precedent (Plummer/Mayl/Burnside) but acknowledges limits and remands for prejudice showing; concurrence urges ODH guidance; dissent objects to expansive deference |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Plummer, 22 Ohio St.3d 292 (Ohio 1986) (held multi-hour unrefrigerated interval could be de minimis and still allow admissibility absent prejudice)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (announced burden-shifting test: defendant must move to suppress; state shows substantial compliance; defendant may then show prejudice)
- State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207 (Ohio 2005) (confirmed that failure to refrigerate for as much as five hours was considered substantial compliance in prior precedent and applied Burnside principles)
- State v. Steele, 52 Ohio St.2d 187 (Ohio 1977) (earlier recognition that rigid literal compliance with ODH testing procedures is not always required)