State v. McMahon
2013 Ohio 2557
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- This appeal concerns suppression of breath-test results from an Intoxilyzer 8000 after a suppression ruling.
- McMahon was stopped for speeding by a state trooper; he admitted alcohol consumption and was arrested.
- At the Union Township Police Department, he underwent a breath test on the Intoxilyzer 8000.
- McMahon faced charges including speeding, OVI, and prohibited breath concentration.
- The trial court suppressed the breath-test results because it found the health department had not promulgated an operator access-card requirement for the Intoxilyzer 8000.
- The city argues the department had promulgated the necessary qualifications for issuing an operator access card; the court requested remand for proper handling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the director of health promulgated the necessary qualifications for operator access cards for the Intoxilyzer 8000 | City contends DOH issued access-card qualifications | McMahon contends no such access-card qualifications exist | Yes; DOH promulgated access-card qualifications and the trial court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (mixed review of suppression standards cited for de novo law application)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Isaacs, 2010-Ohio-5811 (1st Dist. 2010) (deference to agency interpretations of its own regulations)
- Griga v. DiBenedetto, 2012-Ohio-6097 (1st Dist. 2012) (statutory interpretation—legislative intent considerations)
- State v. Steele, 2011-Ohio-5479 (1st Dist. 2011) (reasonableness standard in interpreting regulatory provisions)