State v. Dugan
2013 Ohio 447
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- State appeals a suppression order denying BAC test results for Dugan.
- Dugan was stopped March 12, 2011 for a center-line violation and arrested for OVI after two breath samples (.171 and .175).
- Dugan moved to suppress the breath test; suppression hearing held in 2011 with live testimony from Martin (ODH) and Officer Lopez.
- Discrepancies emerged between Lopez’s observations, the Subject Test Report, and an ODH website document showing multiple sample attempts.
- The trial court partially granted suppression on March 20, 2012, suppressing the BAC results but not other issues.
- Appellate court reverses, holding the state’s appeal proper and BAC results admissible under substantial compliance with ODH regulations; remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Propriety of the state's appeal | State certifies appeal under Crim.R. 12(K) and R.C. 2945.67 | Dugan argues appeal improper without demonstrating destruction of prosecution | Appeal proper under R.C. 2945.67 and Crim.R. 12(K) |
| Admissibility of BAC results based on instrument reliability | Vega prohibits general reliability attacks; focus on regulatory compliance | Trial court could suppress for instrument unreliability | BAC results not suppressible for general unreliability; admissibility governed by substantial compliance with ODH regs; decision reversed to the extent based on unreliability |
| Substantial compliance with ODH regulations (retention and dry gas) | State must show substantial compliance with ODH rules | Dugan challenged specific regulatory compliance | State shown substantial compliance with 3701-52-01(A) and 3701-53-04(B); suppression reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (established substantial-compliance standard and burden-shifting for BAC tests)
- State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 1984) (reliability of breath machines addressed by statute; cannot attack general reliability; may challenge specific procedure)
- State v. Luke, 2006-Ohio-2306 (Ohio 2006) (limits on challenging instrument reliability; admissibility tied to ODH regulations)
- State v. Plunkett, 2008-Ohio-1014 (Ohio 2008) (admissibility hinges on substantial compliance; weight vs. admissibility distinction)
- State v. Deutsch, 12th Dist. CA2008-03-035 (2008) (clarified when state must show substantial compliance for specific regulatory claims)
- State v. Kormos, 2012-Ohio-3128 (Ohio 2012) (interpretation of dry gas before/after subject test per 3701-53-04(B))