State v. Cooper
2016 Ohio 3093
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Heather Cooper caused an August 8, 2014 crash after erratic driving reported by multiple 9-1-1 callers; another driver, Lucas Gloyd, died from injuries.
- Cooper was initially unconscious or intermittently conscious at the scene; she was transported to University of Toledo Medical Center (UTMC).
- Around 1:00–1:30 a.m., while at UTMC and with police and medical staff present, Cooper signed a waiver consenting to a voluntary blood draw; nursing notes recorded her as "alert and oriented x4."
- Officers testified they informed Cooper the draw was voluntary, she was not under arrest, and she could refuse; no threats or promises were made in the officers’ presence.
- Cooper moved to suppress the blood-alcohol test results, arguing she lacked capacity to give knowing, voluntary consent (due to pain, possible medication, and impaired consciousness) and that police lacked probable cause; the trial court denied suppression.
- Cooper pleaded no contest to aggravated vehicular homicide, was sentenced, and appealed solely challenging denial of the suppression motion; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether blood draw was a valid voluntary consent search | Cooper: consent not knowing/voluntary — she was in severe pain, intermittently unconscious, possibly medicated, and not informed of purpose | State: Cooper was alert/oriented, told she could refuse, no coercion, and competent testimony and records support voluntariness | Consent was voluntary; trial court’s factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence |
| Whether exigent circumstances or probable cause justified warrantless blood draw if consent invalid | Cooper: no probable cause shown (no field tests, no clear odor on person) | State: abundant probable cause from multiple 9‑1‑1 reports of intoxicated driving, eyewitness smell of alcohol, and evaporative/dissipating evidence concerns | Court found probable cause/exigent circumstances alternative not necessary given voluntariness; also noted facts supporting probable cause/exigency |
| Whether officers were required to inquire about medication/impairing treatment before accepting consent | Cooper: officers should have asked about administered narcotics or medications affecting capacity | State: no authority imposes such a requirement; records and witnesses showed alertness and orientation | Court declined to impose a duty to inquire where evidence showed alert/oriented status and voluntariness |
| Whether suppression of chemical test would be dispositive given other evidence of impairment | Cooper: suppression necessary to exclude BAC evidence | State: conviction could rest on non-chemical evidence (erratic driving, odor, medical BAC .299 from treatment) | Court noted other admissible evidence of impairment and affirmed denial of suppression; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression: trial court factual findings given deference, legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood withdrawal is a Fourth Amendment search; warrant required unless exception applies)
- State v. Sisler, 114 Ohio App.3d 337, 683 N.E.2d 106 (1996) (blood draw without a warrant unreasonable unless an exception applies)
- City of Fairfield v. Regner, 23 Ohio App.3d 79, 491 N.E.2d 333 (1985) (voluntary consent to blood draw is an exception to warrant requirement and relieves state of proving implied-consent prerequisites)