State v. Henkel, 2015 Ohio 5040

Mary Henkel drove her adult son to lunch and returned to Newbridge Place (a residential mental-health facility) on March 17, 2014; staff observed she appeared intoxicated.
The facility’s Executive Director confirmed Henkel smelled of alcohol, swayed, and immediately called police.
Officer Noah Schrock was dispatched at 3:19 p.m., arrived shortly thereafter, conducted field sobriety tests, and transported Henkel to the Montville Police Department.
A breathalyzer was administered at 5:20 p.m.; Henkel was charged under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d) for prohibited BAC.
Henkel moved to suppress the breath test evidence arguing the test was not performed within the statutory three-hour window of operation; the trial court denied the motion, Henkel pleaded no contest, and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Henkel)	Held
Whether the breath test was administered within three hours of operation under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b)	Dispatch at 3:19 p.m., officer arrival shortly after, and breath test at 5:20 p.m. support a reasonable inference that operation occurred within three hours	Record lacks competent, credible evidence that operation was within three hours; suppression required	Court affirmed denial of suppression: factual findings (dispatch 3:19, test 5:20, staff observed Henkel had “just entered”) supported inference that less than 3 hours elapsed, so test was timely

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of suppression motions: trial court as factfinder; appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Hobbs, 133 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 2012) (applies Burnside framework for suppression review)