967 N.E.2d 292
Oh. Muni. Ct., Franklin2012Background
- defendant Floyd T. Castle was arrested on July 3, 2011 for multiple offenses including OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) and (d).
- Trooper Schack administered a chemical breath test using the BAC Datamaster and held both a senior-operator permit and an operator-access card for the Intoxilyzer 8000.
- Castle filed a motion to suppress on August 12, 2011; the state filed briefs opposing on Sept. 30, 2011 and Feb. 24, 2012.
- The central issue is whether Ohio Admin. Code 3701-53-09(D) prohibits an operator with an operator-access card from testing on any instrument for which they also hold a permit.
- The court analyzes statutory/regulatory interpretation and pari materia to determine if the operator-access card restricts instrument usage.
- The court ultimately suppresses the BAC Datamaster test results for this case, granting the motion in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 3701-53-09(D) bar using other instruments after an operator-access card issued? | Castle argues the last sentence unambiguously bars non-8000 instruments. | Castle contends the regulation should be read in pari materia with permits allowing multiple instruments. | Yes, the regulation is unambiguous; operator-access card prohibits other instruments. |
| Should in pari materia interpretation apply to 3701-53-09 with 3701-53-09(B)? | State asserts reading all subparts together supports multiple-instrument use when permits exist. | Castle argues the plain D text controls, no pari materia if unambiguous. | Even with pari materia, result remains that operator-access card restricts instrument use. |
| Are multiple permits allowed to operate multiple instruments under 3701-53-09(B)? | Yes, permits for each instrument allow use of those instruments. | No, D prohibits using instruments beyond those tied to the card. | Permits may be issued for multiple instruments, but the operator-access card restricts to its specific instrument. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jordan, 89 Ohio St.3d 488 (2000) (interpretation of statutory language and legislative intent)
- State ex rel. Francis v. Sours, 143 Ohio St. 120 (1944) (maxim of interpreting words without deleting or adding)
- State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Allen Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 32 Ohio St.3d 24 (1987) (rule of interpreting statutory ambiguity and intent)
- State ex rel. Toledo Edison Co. v. Clyde, 76 Ohio St.3d 508 (1996) (principles of statutory interpretation and supremacy of text)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (courts cannot rewrite regulatory schemes; remedies lie in doctrine)