State v. Hamrick, 2017 Ohio 4211

Mark Hamrick was charged with OVI and a marked lane violation after his arrest.
Officer Sabo read BMV Form 2255 (the implied-consent warning) to Hamrick in the booking room; parties stipulated that the form was read correctly and a recording exists.
Hamrick consented to a breathalyzer and the BAC DataMaster result was used at trial.
Hamrick moved to suppress the BAC result, arguing his consent was involuntary because Officer Sabo gave misleading information about the administrative license-suspension (ALS) penalties under R.C. 4511.191 after reading the form.
The municipal court denied the motion to suppress; Hamrick appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.

Issue	Hamrick's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Hamrick’s consent to the breath test was involuntary because of officer misinformation about ALS penalties	Consent was induced by Officer Sabo’s misleading statements after the form was read, rendering consent involuntary	Valid implied consent exists once BMV Form 2255 is read; extraneous or inaccurate statements do not invalidate consent	The court held consent valid because BMV Form 2255 was correctly read and any extraneous statements were immaterial

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression: factual findings upheld if supported by competent, credible evidence; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (trial-court factual findings entitled to deference on appeal)
Bryan v. Hudson, 77 Ohio St.3d 376 (Ohio 1997) (reading BMV Form 2255 establishes valid consent/refusal for ALS purposes)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (Ohio Ct. App.) (appellate review framework for mixed questions of law and fact)
State v. Booth, 151 Ohio App.3d 635 (Ohio Ct. App.) (de novo review of legal question after accepting trial-court facts)
State v. Poynter, 78 Ohio App.3d 483 (Ohio Ct. App.1992) (failure to mention certain ALS procedures does not render consent involuntary)