State v. Lamke
988 N.E.2d 913
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Lamke was arrested for OVI in Hamilton County; a deputy seized his motorcycle and Nick’s Towing stored it.
- Lamke faced OVI and related charges; after a bench trial he was acquitted of the OVI offense and his administrative license suspension was set aside.
- Lamke moved for immediate release of the motorcycle and sought an order directing Hamilton County to pay removal and storage fees.
- The trial court granted the motion, relying on R.C. 4511.195(D)(4), mandating the government pay the impound expenses when impoundment is not authorized.
- On appeal, the First District held that (D)(4) did not apply because the impoundment was authorized; the court vacated the fee order and remanded to apply the correct standard under (D)(2) and (F)(1).
- The court concluded that the statute allows discretion to assign fees to the arrested person or the government when impoundment was authorized, and the case must be remanded for the trial court to determine who bears the fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does (D)(4) control when impoundment was authorized? | Lamke | Lamke | No; (D)(4) does not apply when impoundment was authorized. |
| Who bears removal/storage fees if acquitted on OVI and impoundment was authorized? | Lamke argues the government must pay (D)(4) unless not authorized; cites Schulte. | State contends the court should follow (D)(4) only if impoundment not authorized; otherwise not. | The court may charge either the arrested person or government under (F)(1)/(D)(2); remand for discretionary decision. |
| Is (F)(1) part of the proper framework to allocate fees on acquittal? | Lamke relies on (F)(1) to permit charging the arrested person even after acquittal. | State argues (F)(1) was not properly invoked to shift fees in this context. | Yes; (F)(1) provides discretion to charge the arrested person when impoundment was authorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (2007-Ohio-4163) (statutory interpretation framework for R.C. 4511.195)
- Dikong v. Ohio Supports, Inc., 2013-Ohio-33 (1st Dist. No. C-120057) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- State v. Edwards, 2012-Ohio-5142 (5th Dist. No. 2012-CA-12) (interpretation of D(4) in Edwards)
- State v. Hochhausler, 76 Ohio St.3d 455 (1996) (due-process challenges to OVI seizure statutes)
- State v. Heinrich, 142 Ohio App.3d 654 (2001) (pretrial seizure/retention provisions of 4511.195)
- State v. Posey, 135 Ohio App.3d 751 (1999) (issues surrounding OVI seizure and impoundment)
- State v. Schulte, 154 Ohio App.3d 367 (2003-Ohio-3826) (impoundment following acquittal discussed in dicta)