State v. Schuster
2017 Ohio 4115
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On April 22, 2015, Michelle Schuster’s vehicle crossed lanes and struck four electrical workers and an electrical truck; one worker died and three were seriously injured.
- At the hospital police observed Schuster incoherent, yelling, slurred, with suspected needle marks; an officer smelled alcohol and requested a blood/urine kit.
- Officer Seitzman read the BMV 2255 form; Schuster did not sign and remained incoherent; the nurse drew two blood tubes using the law-enforcement kit; police secured and refrigerated the sample and sent it to the Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab.
- Toxicology testing detected alprazolam (Xanax) and marijuana in Schuster’s blood; she was indicted on multiple vehicle-related homicide and assault charges and an OVI (drug) charge.
- Schuster moved to suppress the blood-test results arguing the draw was not voluntary/authorized by law and that collection, transport, or testing failed to comply with Ohio Adm.Code and was contaminated by hospital medications. The trial court denied suppression; a jury convicted her and she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Authority to draw blood without arrest | State: Officer had reasonable grounds/probable cause to believe Schuster drove while impaired; R.C. 4511.191(A)(4) authorizes blood draws from those incapable of refusal | Schuster: Implied-consent statute doesn’t apply because she wasn’t under arrest and wasn’t unconscious | Held: Officer had probable cause and R.C. 4511.191(A)(4) authorizes the draw from a person "incapable of refusal" even if not under arrest |
| 2. Whether Schuster was "incapable of refusal" | State: Medical and officer testimony showed incoherence, in-and-out consciousness, inability to comprehend or communicate | Schuster: Contested that she was not unconscious/incapable (argued lack of statutory trigger) | Held: Trial court credited testimony that Schuster was incapable of communication; appellate court accepted those factual findings as supported by competent, credible evidence |
| 3. Substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code for collection/transport/testing | State: Testimony showed use of law-enforcement kit, antiseptic, sterile needle, labeling, refrigerated and secured storage, and qualified lab testing — demonstrating substantial compliance | Schuster: Argues contamination by hospital-administered medications made results unreliable and regs were not substantially complied with | Held: State met burden of substantial compliance; administrative rules don’t prohibit draws when meds given in emergent care; contamination claim was not preserved below |
| 4. Preservation of contamination argument | State: Trial record shows defendant was allowed to preserve and refile contamination challenge but defense did not supplement motion | Schuster: Argues medication given at hospital could have contaminated or affected results | Held: Appellate court found Schuster waived the contamination-suppression issue by failing to refile and thus did not preserve it for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (warrantless blood draws are subject to Fourth Amendment reasonableness and require recognition of exceptions)
- State v. Emerson, 134 Ohio St.3d 191 (Ohio 2012) (Fourth Amendment and Ohio constitutional principles on searches and seizures)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (state must show substantial compliance with Director of Health regulations to trigger presumption of admissibility of blood tests)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 2000) (substantial-compliance standard excuses only de minimis procedural deviations)
- State v. Taylor, 2 Ohio App.3d 394 (Ohio App. 1982) (implied-consent statute authorizes blood withdrawal from an unconscious person even if not arrested)