State v. Ginn
2013 Ohio 1692
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Officer observed Ginn's vehicle weaving and crossing center lines in the early morning hours of Aug. 19, 2011 near Dayton Mall; stopped on Southwind Rd after continuing on SR 725.
- Ginn exhibited odor of alcohol, bloodshot/glassy eyes, flushed face, slurred speech, and could not immediately produce a valid license; vehicle had South Carolina plates.
- Officer McCoy administered HGN; Ginn swayed, could not safely perform further field sobriety tests and was detained/arrested.
- Ginn consented to a breath test at the police headquarters; Intoxilyzer 5000 registered a breath alcohol content of .215; procedures were claimed to have been followed.
- Ginn was indicted on one count of OVI (prior felony breath result over .17) on Nov. 14, 2011; suppression motion filed Dec. 29, 2011; motion denied May 7, 2012.
- Ginn pled no contest July 20, 2012; trial court sentenced to 12 months, with 120 days mandatory; Ginn appealed challenging the breath test admissibility and later the confrontation issue
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the breath test under ODH regulations | State must show substantial compliance with ODH rules | Breath machine not properly calibrated/maintenance inadequate | Breath test properly admitted; substantial compliance shown |
| Sufficiency of Ginn's motion to suppress | General compliance evidence suffices without fact-specific claims | Motion not sufficiently particularized about solution handling | Trial court properly overruled suppression; evidence admitted |
| Sixth Amendment confrontation right in suppression hearing | Melendez-Diaz requires confrontation of analysts | Confrontation right not implicated in suppression hearing | No Sixth Amendment violation; admissibility upheld via officer testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Conley, 2008-Ohio-609 (2d Dist. Greene No. 2007 CA 52 (2008)) (breath-test admissibility; substantial compliance standard)
- State v. Bissaillon, 2007-Ohio-2349 (Greene App. No. 06-CA-130 (2007)) (motion to suppress breath-test challenge; general compliance sufficient)
- State v. Mai, 2006-Ohio-1430 (2d Dist. Greene No. 2005-CA-115) (officer testimony establishes compliance with testing regulations)
- State v. Lampe, 2004-Ohio-5832 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20499) (calibration/check procedure evidence supports substantial compliance)
- U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 ((1974)) (hearsay allowed in suppression proceedings; evidentiary rules limited at hearing)