2021 Ohio 1114
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- November 14, 2017: multi-vehicle crash at ~7:14 p.m.; Moore was extricated, transported to hospital, and a deceased victim was at scene. Officers smelled alcohol and learned Moore had been at a bar.
- Officer sought Moore’s consent for blood; when he was sedated/uncooperative, officers sought a search warrant.
- Search warrant was signed at 11:46 p.m.; blood was drawn by a phlebotomist at 12:08 a.m. (≈5 hours after the accident). The DUI kit was refrigerated at the police station at 1:46 a.m. and later tested at the Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab.
- Moore moved to suppress the blood-alcohol results, arguing (1) the draw was outside the three-hour statutory window in R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b), (2) refrigeration violated Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F), (3) chain-of-custody defects under Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-06(A), and (4) the search warrant required drawing within three hours so the delay violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Trial court found substantial compliance with administrative rules, no Fourth Amendment violation, denied suppression; jury convicted Moore of aggravated vehicular homicide; sentence merged counts and imposed an eight-year prison term.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Moore's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of blood taken outside R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) 3‑hour window | Blood is admissible if administrative requirements were substantially complied with and experts testify (per Hassler) | Blood drawn ≈5 hours after operation makes results inadmissible | Admissible: court followed Hassler — substantial compliance + expert testimony render the late draw admissible |
| Refrigeration under Ohio Adm.Code 3701‑53‑05(F) | Short delay in refrigeration was de minimis and within precedent allowing several hours before refrigeration | Delay (≈1 hr 38 min before refrigeration) violated the regulation and mandates suppression | Substantial compliance found; delay does not require suppression (Baker/Barger precedent) |
| Chain of custody under Ohio Adm.Code 3701‑53‑06(A) | MVRCL maintained internal chain of custody and retained records; any pre-lab gaps go to weight, not admissibility | Breaks in custody undermine reliability and require suppression | Substantial compliance established; alleged pre-lab issues affect weight, not admissibility |
| Fourth Amendment/search-warrant execution (warrant said “as soon as possible (within 3 hours)”) | Warrant must be executed “as soon as possible”; short delay without bad faith does not render search unreasonable | Warrant required blood within 3 hours; drawing ≈5 hours after operation made execution illegal and violated Fourth Amendment | No Fourth Amendment violation: warrant validly executed as soon as possible; no bad faith or undue delay (Barger reasoning) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hassler, 875 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 2007) (blood drawn outside three‑hour window admissible if administrative requirements substantially complied with and expert testimony offered)
- State v. Baker, 58 N.E.3d 1114 (Ohio 2016) (failure to refrigerate for several hours can be a de minimis error; strict compliance is not always required)
- State v. Barger, 91 N.E.3d 277 (Ohio Ct. App.) (warrant language construed to require execution “as soon as possible”; short delays beyond three hours do not automatically invalidate warrant absent bad faith)
- State v. Plummer, 490 N.E.2d 902 (Ohio 1986) (earlier decision recognizing up to five hours of unrefrigerated storage as not fatal to admissibility)
- State v. Mayl, 833 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio 2005) (similar precedent supporting substantial‑compliance approach to refrigeration issues)