State v. Vasquez
2017 Ohio 7255
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shortly after midnight officer found Candido Vasquez asleep in a car parked at an angle with vomit on the door, empty beer cans, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, strong odor of alcohol, and no license; keys were in the car.
- Officer Scott awakened Vasquez, had him exit the vehicle, administered field-sobriety tests (poor performance), then arrested him for physical control of a vehicle while under the influence and transported him to the station.
- A breath test at the station later read .189 g/210 L. Officer Scott charged Vasquez with OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)), Per Se (.19 g/210 L) (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h)), no license, and impeding traffic; he did not charge the statutory physical-control offense that prompted the arrest.
- Vasquez moved to suppress field-sobriety and breath-test evidence, arguing lack of probable cause to arrest for operation and that the breath test was not taken within R.C. 4511.19(D)’s three-hour window; the trial court granted the motion without specifying which evidence was excluded.
- The state appealed. The appellate court concluded the trial court applied an incorrect probable-cause standard and that probable cause supported the physical-control arrest, but the trial court correctly suppressed the breath-test result in the Per Se (breath-concentration) case for failure to prove compliance with R.C. 4511.19(D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arrest — applicable probable-cause standard | State: Court should assess probable cause for any offense the officer could lawfully arrest for (including physical control), not only operation offenses | Vasquez: Probable cause only for physical control; no probable cause to arrest for operation offenses | Court: Trial court erred by applying an "operation"-only standard; probable cause for physical control existed, so arrest lawful |
| Whether probable cause existed to arrest Vasquez | State: Officer Scott’s observations (sleeping at wheel, vomit, alcohol smell, beer cans, slurred speech, bad FST performance) provided probable cause for physical control/impairment | Vasquez: Facts did not support probable-cause finding for operation offenses; thus seizure/tests unlawful | Court: Vasquez conceded probable cause for physical control; suppression on that ground was error |
| Admissibility of breath-test results under R.C. 4511.19(D) (three-hour rule) | State: Breath result admissible in OVI case and other non-Per Se cases even absent proof at suppression hearing of three-hour compliance; statutory rule should not automatically exclude in OVI cases | Vasquez: Breath result must be suppressed for Per Se case because state failed to show sample was within the statutory three-hour window | Court: Suppression proper for Per Se prosecution (statute requires exclusion where not shown); but breath result remains admissible in OVI and other non-Per Se proceedings subject to usual evidentiary foundation and expert testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (warrantless arrest valid if supported by probable cause to believe any offense committed)
- State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323 (probable cause analysis for arrests)
- State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165 (standard of review for suppression hearing legal issues)
- State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421 (probable-cause standard for DUI-related arrests)
- State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122 (probable cause and DUI context)
- State v. French, 72 Ohio St.3d 446 (exclusionary-rule context for nonconstitutional statutory violations)
- City of Newark v. Lucas, 40 Ohio St.3d 100 (R.C. 4511.19(D) requires exclusion of chemical-test results in Per Se cases when outside statutory time window)
- State v. Hassler, 115 Ohio St.3d 322 (distinguishing Per Se exclusion and admissibility in other DUI contexts)