State v. Lucas, 2013 Ohio 544

Stopped for missing rear/front plates on SR 43; officer detected strong odor of alcohol and red, glassy eyes.
Defendant failed field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI; breath test at station showed BAC 0.087.
Trial court suppressed breath-test results; ruled state had to prove scientific reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 as a threshold admissibility matter.
State appealed, arguing that a general attack on the Intoxilyzer’s reliability is improper and that Vega controls admissibility.
Eleventh District held that the Intoxilyzer 8000 carries a presumption of reliability but a defendant may challenge specific testing deficiencies; state’s burden to prove general reliability is rebuttable; remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a defendant attack general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000?	Lucas argues for a general reliability challenge.	Lucas contends Vega prohibits general attacks on reliability.	No; general attack prohibited, but threshold reliability may be challenged.
May the trial court require proof of general reliability before admitting test results?	Lucas asserts no such requirement is needed beyond Vega.	Lucas contends discretion is limited by Vega.	Yes; trial court may require reliability evidence; reversal and remand follow.

State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984) (establishes presumption of reliability for approved devices; expert attack on general reliability allowed only to a limited extent)
State v. Johnson, 2013-Ohio-440 (Ohio 2013) (discusses threshold admissibility and reliability burden when general reliability is challenged)
State v. Rouse, 2012-Ohio-5584 (Ohio 2012) (recognizes defendant may challenge specific deficiencies in testing equipment)
State v. Djisheff, 2006-Ohio-6201 (Ohio 2006) (de novo review of suppression rulings in admissibility determinations)
State v. Beechler, 2010-Ohio-1900 (Ohio 2010) (discretion in admission/exclusion of evidence; gatekeeping authority)