State v. Mullins, 2013 Ohio 2688

Laura Mullins was arrested after a vehicle crash and agreed to a urine test; sample collected at 6:44 p.m. on March 24, 2012.
Trooper Hutton witnessed collection and gave the sample to Trooper Brown the same evening.
The sample remained unrefrigerated in Trooper Brown’s locked patrol cruiser until it was mailed at about 6:30 a.m. the next day (~12 hours later).
Mullins moved to suppress the urine-test results, arguing noncompliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F) (requiring refrigeration while not in transit or under examination).
The trial court denied the motion, adopting a bright-line rule that mailing during or immediately after the officer’s shift is acceptable; Mullins pleaded no contest and appealed.
The appellate court independently reviewed stipulated facts and reversed, finding ~12 hours unrefrigerated was not a de minimis procedural deviation and the State failed to prove substantial compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved "substantial compliance" with the Director of Health regulation requiring refrigeration of urine specimens while not in transit or under examination	The State argued mailing the sample during or immediately after the trooper’s shift constitutes substantial compliance; short delays within a shift are acceptable	Mullins argued the sample was unrefrigerated for ~12 hours and that is not a de minimis or minor procedural deviation from the refrigeration requirement	Court held the ~12-hour unrefrigerated retention was not clearly de minimis; State failed to show substantial compliance, so suppression should have been granted

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (explaining burden-shifting and that the State must show substantial compliance with Director of Health regulations)
State v. Plummer, 22 Ohio St.3d 292 (Ohio 1986) (found brief, necessary delays between collection, packaging, mailing, and testing can constitute substantial compliance)