State v. Simpson, 2023 Ohio 3207

On Oct. 17, 2021 Simpson drove the wrong way at high speed and collided with a vehicle, seriously injuring multiple occupants.
A search warrant was issued authorizing a search of Simpson and seizure of her blood; the warrant included language commanding that seized property be brought before the judge within three days.
Police seized two vials of Simpson’s blood at the hospital; toxicology testing later showed BAC 0.12%.
Simpson moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing the warrant did not authorize testing and law enforcement violated the warrant’s three‑day return requirement.
The trial court denied suppression (finding testing implicit in the warrant), Simpson pleaded no contest to two counts of aggravated vehicular assault while preserving the suppression issue, and she was sentenced to consecutive terms (60 and 36 months, aggregate 96 months).
Simpson appealed challenging (1) denial of suppression and (2) imposition of consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Simpson)	Held
Whether blood testing exceeded warrant scope and requires suppression	Warrant to seize blood implicitly authorized toxicology testing; any procedural warrant language about returning property to judge does not create a constitutional defect	Warrant authorized seizure only and required the blood to be brought to the judge within 3 days; testing after failure to return the blood exceeded the warrant and was warrantless	Denied: warrant reasonably read to authorize testing; failure to comply with the 3‑day instruction was not a Fourth Amendment violation warranting suppression
Whether consecutive sentences were improper because offenses stemmed from a single instantaneous act	Consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and to punish; offenses were part of a course of conduct (same time, place, scheme) and harms were great/unusual	A single instantaneous act cannot constitute a "course of conduct," so consecutive terms are not supported	Denied: record supports R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings (necessity, proportionality, course of conduct); consecutive sentences affirmed

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression: accept trial-court factual findings, de novo review of legal conclusions)
State v. Emerson, 134 Ohio St.3d 191 (2012) (Ohio and federal Fourth Amendment principles are aligned; limited expectation of privacy in certain scientific analyses)
State v. Martines, 184 Wash.2d 83 (2015) (warrant authorizing blood draw sensibly authorizes testing of that sample)
United States v. Snyder, 852 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1988) (seizure of blood includes subsequent testing; the seizure’s purpose justifies later analysis)
State v. Frescoln, 911 N.W.2d 450 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017) (commonsense reading of warrant implies chemical testing of seized blood)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and memorialize statutory findings to impose consecutive sentences)