State v. Rawnsley
2011 Ohio 5696
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Rawnsley involved in a two-vehicle collision in Huber Heights late at night; Officer Fosnight responded and observed a strong odor of alcohol from Rawnsley.
- Rawnsley was not arrested at the scene; paramedics took control of her medical assessment due to injuries from the crash.
- Officer Fosnight read Rawnsley the BMV 2255 form about consequences of testing; he later admitted she was not actually under arrest.
- Rawnsley consented to a blood draw after being advised of consequences; the blood was drawn at 12:56 a.m. for an OVI test.
- The blood sample was stored by the police and eventually tested for alcohol at the crime lab; the trial court suppressed the evidence.
- The State appealed, arguing consent or exigent circumstances allowed the warrantless blood draw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Rawnsley’s consent knowing and intelligent? | Rawnsley | Rawnsley | Consent not knowing and intelligent; suppression affirmed |
| Did exigent circumstances justify a warrantless blood draw? | Rawnsley | Rawnsley | Exigent circumstances not proven; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. Supreme Court (1966)) (blood draws without a warrant require probable cause and exigent circumstances)
- State v. Hoover, 123 Ohio St.3d 41 (2009-Ohio-4993) (implied consent statute does not violate constitutions when properly applied)
- State v. Rice, 129 Ohio App.3d 91 (1998) (misinformation about consequences can negate knowing and intelligent consent)
- State v. Starnes, 21 Ohio St.2d 38 (1970) (implied consent doctrine governs roadside breath/testing)