2014 Ohio 5214
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Roar crashed near Route 23/Route 32; Alicia Vanhoose died; Roar and two passengers injured and treated at Pike Community Hospital.
- Trooper Davis obtained a statement from Roar and drew his blood at the hospital; lab results showed marijuana metabolite above legal limit but alcohol below the limit.
- Roar was indicted on aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault; Roar moved to suppress the blood evidence as unlawfully obtained.
- Trooper Davis testified about prior information on a fatal crash with suspected foul play and the patrol policy to obtain blood from drivers in fatal/serious crashes.
- The trial court denied suppression; Roar pled no contest to counts based on marijuana metabolite; court sentenced Roar to four years, with two years mandatory, plus license suspension.
- Appellate court overruled Roar’s suppression-related assignments and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding probable cause and exigent circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent voluntariness | Roar contends consent was involuntary due to backboard restraint and misadvice of arrest. | State contends voluntariness supported by discovery of consent after warnings and exigent circumstances. | Consent issue mooted; exclusionary ruling affirmed by alternative grounds |
| Probable cause to believe blood would contain evidence of a crime | Roar argues lack of probable cause given no observed impairment and no direct scene observation. | State argues totality of circumstances—fatal crash, alcohol containers, lethargy, glassy eyes, HGN findings—established probable cause. | Probable cause established; blood draw reasonable without warrant |
| Exigent circumstances to permit warrantless blood draw | Roar asserts no exigent circumstances; warrant could be sought without impermissible delay. | State asserts evanescent evidence and time needed to obtain a warrant would dissipate evidence, justifying exigency. | Exigent circumstances existed; warrantless blood draw justified |
| Equating probable cause for blood to arrest with impairment under influence | Roar argues probable cause for blood draw did not equate to probable cause of impairment/under the influence. | State contends probable cause to arrest for OVI supports blood draw. | Trial court did not err in equating the standards; blood draw upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 364 U.S. 757 (1966) (evanescent nature of evidence justifies warrantless blood draw with probable cause)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (automatic warrantless blood draws require exigent circumstances or probable cause)
- State v. Carr, 2013-Ohio-737 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. 2013) (exigent circumstances plus probable cause can validate blood draw without warrant)