State v. Schneider
2013 Ohio 4789
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Trooper arrested Schneider for OVI and collected a urine sample at 3:15 a.m. in a sealed container.
- The trooper transported the specimen to his post and mailed it later, noting “by hand” transport.
- Schneider’s urine was not refrigerated from collection until mailing, about 18 hours 45 minutes.
- The crime lab received the sample on March 22 and conducted alcohol analysis on March 29, revealing 0.239 g/100 mL.
- Defense moved to suppress alleging non-refrigeration violated Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F); trial court suppressed; state appealed.
- The court held the state demonstrated substantial compliance and reversed, remanding for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state complied with refrigeration rule | Schneider | Schneider | Substantial compliance found |
| Scope of 'in transit' under regulation | State | Schneider | Not limited to mail; broader transit includes non-mail transport |
| Prejudice from non-refrigeration | State | Schneider | No prejudice shown; suppression improper |
| Precedent for substantial compliance standard | State | Schneider | Regulatory leeway allowed; de minimis deviations permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Plummer, 22 Ohio St.3d 292 (1986) (substantial compliance allowed; not always literal)