2013 Ohio 4115
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Walsky was cited for OVI in Portage County; she moved to suppress the Intoxilyzer 8000 results and challenge the officer's certification.
- The trial court granted suppression of general reliability evidence and held the officer’s access card sufficient to authorize testing; judgment stayed.
- The state appealed, contending the trial court erred by allowing a general attack on the Intoxilyzer 8000’s reliability under Ohio law.
- The court reviewed the issues de novo and adopted a burden-shifting framework: defendant must raise specific challenges to reliability after presumptive general reliability.
- The court concluded the state need not first prove general reliability; the defendant must meet a production burden to trigger state proof, on remand.
- Additionally, the cross-issue argued the officer lacked a permit; the court held an access card suffices as a permit-like credential to operate the device.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must prove general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 before trial | Walsky argues the State bears burden to prove reliability of the device generally. | Walsky contends Vega requires no initial general reliability proof by the State and that general reliability can be challenged at suppression. | State burden shifted; defendant must produce specific unreliability challenges on remand. |
| Whether the officer administering the test needed a permit versus an access card | State must show the officer possessed a valid permit to administer the test. | Access card suffices for certification under the statutes and administrative codes. | Access card is tantamount to a permit; the test results are admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2012-P-0027, 2012-Ohio-5583 (2012) (presumption of reliability for statutorily approved breath devices; burden-shifting on challenges)
- State v. Miller, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2012-P-0032, 2012-Ohio-5585 (2012) (specific reliability challenges allowed; but general reliability not attackable via Daubert)
- State v. Rouse, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2012-P-0030, 2012-Ohio-5584 (2012) (recognizes limitations of Daubert analysis for general reliability in this context)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Daubert/Miller framework for scientific reliability of methodologies)
- U.S. v. Whitten, 848 F.2d 195 (6th Cir. 1988) (burden-shifting framework in suppression-like contexts for searches)
- U.S. v. Murrie, 534 F.2d 695 (6th Cir. 1976) (illustrates burden shifting in suppression contexts)