2017 Ohio 9306
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Late-night (2:47 a.m.) high-speed motorcycle crash on I-75 in Toledo on August 21, 2015; rider (Speelman) and passenger not wearing helmets.
- Motorcycle estimated at or above 102 mph in a 65 mph zone; collision ejected passenger ~450 feet; passenger died from blunt force trauma.
- Responding officers found Speelman unconscious, unresponsive, severely injured (facial, leg wounds), emitting gurgling sounds, and smelling strongly of alcohol; initially presumed deceased.
- Emergency personnel and police obtained blood draws from Speelman while he was unconscious; blood-alcohol tests showed levels above the legal limit.
- Speelman was indicted on two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide; he moved to suppress the blood-test evidence.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion; Speelman pled no contest to one count, was sentenced, and appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Speelman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of blood drawn from an unconscious suspect | Blood draw permitted under Ohio's implied-consent statute for unconscious persons and authorized when officer has reasonable cause to believe DUI | Birchfield requires breath test alternative when available; argues implied-consent statutory scheme unconstitutional as applied | Trial court correctly denied suppression: unconsciousness and exigency made blood draw lawful under R.C. 4511.191 and Birchfield inapplicable |
| Exigency / need for warrant before blood draw | Rapid dissipation/metabolism of blood-alcohol and severity of injuries created exigent circumstances making warrant impracticable | Argued warrantless blood draw violated Fourth Amendment absent breath-test alternative or warrant | Court found no reasonable opportunity to obtain warrant given life-threatening injuries and risk of evidence loss; warrantless draw permitted |
| Applicability of Birchfield v. North Dakota | State: Birchfield allows warrantless blood draws only where breath test unavailable; here breath test unavailable because suspect unconscious | Speelman: Birchfield undermines implied-consent blood draws and requires suppression | Court: Birchfield distinguishes conscious suspects able to take breath tests; here suspect was unconscious and could not provide breath sample, so Birchfield does not bar the blood draw |
| Standard of review for motion to suppress | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Appellate court defers to trial court's factual findings if supported by competent, credible evidence (citing State v. Burnside); affirmed denial of suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71 (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings; deference to trial court's factual findings)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016) (Supreme Court: reasonableness of blood draws judged against availability of less invasive breath tests; distinguishes conscious suspects able to take breath tests)