State v. Harmon, 2013 Ohio 442

This appeal concerns suppression of breath test results from the Intoxilyzer 8000 used in Harmon’s OVI case.
The municipal court limited its suppression ruling to the admissibility of the BrAC test from the Intoxilyzer 8000 and relied on a Johnson unreported decision.
Harmon argued multiple grounds for suppression, including compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) and OAC 3701-53-01 et seq., and a Daubert-based challenge to reliability.
The State argued Daubert challenges are not required at suppression and that the court should focus on admissibility under the director-approved methods.
The trial court’s June 20, 2012 decision granted suppression based on the lack of demonstrated general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000, and the State timely appealed.
The Eleventh District reversed, holding the general-reliability gatekeeping issue is discretionary and remanded for resolution of Harmon’s remaining suppression arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court may require proof of the Intoxilyzer 8000’s general reliability before admission	State contends no broader reliability proof is required beyond statutory permits	Harmon contends the State must prove general reliability before admitting test results	Remand to address broader reliability grounds; judgment reversed on this issue

State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984) (trial may attack testing procedures; weight not admissibility)
State v. Tanner, 15 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (statutory framework allows challenges to admissibility and weight)
State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446 (1995) (need to prove methods approved by Director of Health and operator permit; evidentiary objections may be raised)
State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900 (2nd Dist.) (affirming gatekeeping discretion in exclusion of breath-test results without reliability proof)