State v. Heretick
2017 Ohio 5682
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On December 15, 2015, Corey Heretick was arrested for suspected DUI and submitted to a breath test on an Intoxilyzer 8000, yielding a 0.148 BAC; he was charged under R.C. 4511.19.
- Heretick moved to compel production of ODH-held documents relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000, including correspondence with the manufacturer and database/schema materials.
- The Maumee City Prosecutor subpoenaed the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) for those records; ODH moved in part to quash the subpoena.
- ODH argued production of communications was an unduly burdensome fishing expedition and that database/schema materials were proprietary and restricted by a licensing agreement.
- The trial court summarily denied ODH’s motion to quash without holding an evidentiary hearing or explicitly applying the Nixon factors.
- ODH appealed; the Sixth District reversed, holding the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion to quash and remanded for such a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied ODH’s motion to quash without an evidentiary hearing | State argued prior similar hearings and submitted a prior transcript justified denial and sufficed to show relevance and necessity | ODH argued denial without an evidentiary hearing violated the Potts/Nixon requirements and was an abuse of discretion | Reversed: trial court abused its discretion by denying motion without holding an evidentiary hearing to apply Nixon factors |
| Whether requested communications and database materials are an undue "fishing expedition" | State asserted requested records were relevant to challenge Intoxilyzer reliability and relied on prior case record | ODH contended the request was unduly burdensome and sought proprietary/manufacturer-owned information barred by license | Not decided on merits — remanded for hearing so factual/procedural burdens and proprietary claims can be addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served upon Potts, 100 Ohio St.3d 97 (2003) (trial court must hold evidentiary hearing and apply Nixon factors before ruling on motion to quash subpoena duces tecum)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (standards for subpoena duces tecum: relevance, admissibility, and specificity; prohibits broad fishing expeditions)
- State v. Combs, 62 Ohio St.3d 278 (1991) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion)