State v. Butler
2013 Ohio 4451
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On Dec. 23, 2012 Officer stopped Alan Butler for a single headlight; Butler admitted drinking and was asked to exit to perform standardized field sobriety tests.
- After tests, Officer Mans and her partner concluded Butler was intoxicated; Butler was arrested and a urine sample was obtained.
- Stark County Crime Lab analyst Brad Taylor tested two urine samples by headspace gas chromatography and reported 0.113% ethanol in urine.
- Taylor testified the lab does not currently calculate a numerical uncertainty or error rate for results, though he expressed confidence in their procedures and the two concordant analyses.
- Butler moved to suppress the urinalysis arguing inadmissibility due to the lab’s lack of a known accuracy percentage/error rate; the trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of urinalysis absent lab-stated error rate | State: Results admissible because test performed by approved method and no evidence of ODH noncompliance | Butler: Results inadmissible because lab cannot state a percentage accuracy or known error rate | Court: Admit results; lack of a quantified error rate at suppression stage irrelevant without evidence of noncompliance or prejudice |
| Applicability of Daubert reliability inquiry to alcohol/urine tests | State: Legislative scheme assigns reliability gatekeeping to ODH, obviating Daubert at suppression | Butler: Court should apply Daubert factors (known error rate, peer review, etc.) | Court: Daubert analysis not required; Vega/legislative scheme controls |
| Whether a general attack on testing method is permitted | State: General attacks on method reliability are foreclosed by statute and precedent | Butler: Challenges to accuracy/validity should prevent admission | Court: General attacks prohibited; specific challenges to a particular test result must be made at trial |
| Scope of French (motion to suppress vs. trial evidentiary objections) | State: French allows suppression motions for foundational ODH compliance issues; other challenges go to trial | Butler: Seeks suppression based on evidentiary reliability concerns | Held: French requires suppression motion only for specific ODH-grounded foundations; other objections preserved for trial under Rules of Evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446 (1995) (motion to suppress required for certain ODH-foundational challenges; other evidentiary attacks reserved for trial)
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984) (legislative determination that certain alcohol tests are generally reliable; Director of Health decides admissible methods)
- State v. Plummer, 22 Ohio St.3d 292 (1986) (substantial compliance with ODH regulations suffices absent prejudice)
- Defiance v. Kretz, 60 Ohio St.3d 1 (1991) (admissibility under R.C. 4511.19 turns on substantial compliance with ODH regs)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial-court gatekeeping on expert reliability; factors include testability and known error rate)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (mixed questions of law and fact on searches reviewed de novo; deference to trial court fact findings)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for motion to suppress is mixed law/fact)