State v. Sanders, 2023 Ohio 2092

On Feb. 20, 2020 police found Marouise Sanders asleep behind the wheel of a running, disabled vehicle; alcohol containers were found inside/outside the car and officers observed signs of intoxication. Sanders was arrested for OVI.
Officer Heather Smith and Officer Ashley Reneau recorded body‑worn camera footage and uploaded it to the Toledo Police Department’s G‑Tech cloud system. A data migration malfunction in Oct. 2020 resulted in permanent deletion of Smith’s footage; Reneau’s footage was later deleted after being miscoded as a “test.”
Sanders filed a motion to preserve evidence in Dec. 2020 (after Smith’s footage had already been deleted) and a motion to suppress in Apr. 2021 seeking exclusion of officer testimony because the bodycam videos were lost.
At the June 24, 2021 suppression hearing officers and a court‑liaison sergeant testified about the deletion and departmental retention policies (arrest evidence retained three years if properly categorized); no one had viewed the deleted footage before its loss.
The trial court ruled Sanders bore the burden to prove the lost videos were materially exculpatory, found he failed to meet that burden, denied suppression, and after a bench trial convicted him of OVI. Sentence: 365 days (30 days jail to serve), two years probation. Sanders appealed.

Issue	Sanders' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether loss of bodycam footage required suppression of officer testimony under Due Process (materially exculpatory evidence)	The deleted bodycam footage was unique, objectively recorded, and likely exculpatory, so its loss violated due process and warranted suppression	Sanders cannot show the footage was materially exculpatory because no one viewed it before deletion; no bad faith by the State; other evidence remained available	Court: Sanders failed to prove the footage was materially exculpatory; burden remained on him because preservation request was filed after deletion; denial of suppression affirmed
Whether the OVI conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Officers admitted initial concern about a medical emergency and failed to have Sanders medically evaluated, undermining intoxication findings	Officers’ observations—running car, open containers, strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, unsteadiness, belligerence—supported OVI; initial medical concern dispelled once Sanders awakened	Court: Evidence weighed in favor of conviction; not an exceptional case to overturn. Conviction affirmed

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (due process test for destroyed materially exculpatory evidence)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (bad‑faith requirement when only potentially useful evidence is lost)
State v. Powell, 971 N.E.2d 865 (Ohio framework distinguishing materially exculpatory vs potentially useful evidence)
State v. Wesson, 999 N.E.2d 557 (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (deference to trial court factual findings)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (materiality: reasonable probability that disclosure would change outcome)
State v. Johnston, 529 N.E.2d 898 (application of Bagley materiality standard in Ohio)
State v. Nastick, 94 N.E.3d 139 (discussing due process protection for lost evidence)
State v. Benton, 737 N.E.2d 1046 (lost video can be unique and unobtainable by other means)
State v. Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (manifest‑weight standard)
State v. Fox, 985 N.E.2d 532 (if no one reviewed a video before deletion, defendant generally cannot show it was materially exculpatory)