State v. Moore
5 N.E.3d 41
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Antonio Moore was cited for OVI and for having prohibited breath alcohol concentration under R.C. 4511.19; he moved to suppress Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test results.
- Moore argued ODH failed to promulgate qualifications for personnel who operate the Intoxilyzer 8000, so the administering officer lacked a valid permit under R.C. 3701.143 and results are inadmissible under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b).
- The municipal trial court granted the suppression, finding no ODH standards for who qualifies for an "operator access card."
- On appeal the State argued the ODH rules (Ohio Admin.Code 3701-53-07(C),(E) and 3701-53-09(D)) establish operator qualifications and that an "operator access card" is essentially an operator’s permit.
- The appellate court read the rules in pari materia, accepted that access cards function as permits (bolstered by a subsequent rule amendment explicitly calling the access card a permit), reversed the suppression, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODH promulgated qualifications for persons who operate the Intoxilyzer 8000 | ODH regulations (3701-53-07 and 3701-53-09) set forth operator qualifications; access card functions as permit | ODH did not set standards for obtaining an operator access card; access card is not the same as an operator’s permit | ODH rules read together supply qualifications; access card = permit; ODH complied with R.C. 3701.143 |
| Whether breath test results are inadmissible under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) because the operator lacked a valid permit | Results admissible because operator held an operator access card that qualifies as a permit under the rules | Results inadmissible because no valid permit could issue absent specific access-card qualification rules | Results are admissible; suppression was erroneous and reversed |
| Proper interpretation of administrative rules referencing both "operator" and "operator access card" | Agency’s reading that access card is the form of permit for Intoxilyzer operators is reasonable and harmonizes provisions | Agency reading is insufficient; ambiguity requires exclusion per prior precedent | Court construed rules in pari materia, gave effect to operator-permit provisions; later amendment corroborates interpretation |
| Whether Ripple requires exclusion regardless of rules interpretation | State argued Ripple issue is moot after reversal | Defendant relied on Ripple to support exclusion where rule requirements not met | Court found Ripple issue moot and did not decide it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ripple, 70 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 1994) (addresses exclusion of chemical test results when statutory or regulatory prerequisites are not met)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings: accept trial court’s factual findings if supported, review legal conclusions de novo)
- McFee v. Nursing Care Mgt. of Am., Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 183 (Ohio 2010) (administrative rules are interpreted like statutes; apply plain meaning and read provisions in context)