State v. Mongeau, 2012 Ohio 5230

Mongeau stopped at 11:30 p.m. for drifting left of center and near-guardrail contact; deputy smelled odor of intoxicating beverage.
Mongeau admitted drinking, saying he had three drinks and stopped around 7 p.m.; slurred speech observed.
No field sobriety tests performed beyond attempted HGN due to noncompliance/back issues; breath test offered and performed on DataMaster, yielding .127 BAC.
Mongeau charged with OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(D)) and failure to drive in marked lanes (R.C. 4511.33(A)); pled not guilty.
Motion to suppress data from the DataMaster based on testing protocol concerns was filed; suppression hearing held; motion overruled.
Mongeau changed plea to no contest; court sentenced to 30 days in jail (suspended on probation), non-reporting probation for 1 year, driver intervention program, and 6-month license suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suppression denial was proper	Mongeau asserts DataMaster testing flaws violated due process.	Mongeau contends dual testing should be used; challenge targets reliability of DataMaster.	Overruled; attack on general testing procedure precluded; no irregularities shown in Mongeau's test
Whether choice of testing device violated due process	DataMaster testing procedure is flawed; issue due process due to device used.	Both DataMaster and Intoxilyzer 8000 are approved; no requirement to use one over the other.	Denied; regulations permit either device when available

State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St.3d 185 (1984) (general attack on reliability of breath-testing instrument barred)
State v. Columber, 2006-Ohio-5490 (3d Dist. 2006) (Staubus testimony attacking general reliability is precluded under Vega)
State v. Sabo, 2006-Ohio-1521 (10th Dist. 2006) (dual-testing argument deemed attack on basic testing procedure, not test-specific)
State v. DeHaas, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (weight/credibility issues reserved for the trier of fact; admissibility defined)