State v. Williams
2017 Ohio 4455
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 2, 2016, Sgt. Eric Knowlton arrested Randy Williams for OVI after a crash and administered a BAC DataMaster breath test that registered .135.
- Knowlton held a BAC DataMaster senior operator permit from the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) with an effective date in April 2016; the State introduced the ODH-issued permit certificate at the suppression hearing.
- Williams moved to suppress the breath-test result, arguing (as narrowed) that the administering officer had not completed required proficiency testing within the past year and had not presented evidence satisfactory to the director that he continued to meet qualifications for a permit renewal.
- At the hearing, Knowlton testified he passed a proficiency exam using a known alcohol solution; another sergeant (Heddleston) testified he used a live/subject sample during his practical proficiency test.
- The municipal court suppressed the breath-test result, concluding Knowlton’s renewal did not comply with O.A.C. 3701-53-08(E)’s requirement that applicants "accept samples," and therefore his permit was invalid under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b).
- The State appealed; the Fourth District reversed, holding the ODH regulations do not require permitting renewals to include a proficiency examination accepting subject samples and that Knowlton’s ODH-issued permit was valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a BAC DataMaster senior operator renewal is invalid absent a proficiency exam that accepts "samples" | State: ODH-issued permit certificate evidences a valid permit; renewal regulations do not mandate a proficiency exam accepting subject samples | Williams: Renewal must comply with O.A.C. 3701-53-08(E), which requires accepting samples during proficiency exams, so Knowlton’s renewal was invalid because he used a known solution | Reversed: Renewal qualifications are governed by O.A.C. 3701-53-09(F) and 3701-53-07(D); proficiency exams are at the director’s discretion under 3701-53-08(C) and are not a mandatory prerequisite to renewal |
| Whether the trial court could invalidate an ODH permit based on its view of regulatory compliance | State: A permit issued by ODH is evidence the director found the holder qualified; courts should not override director’s determinations absent clear statutory/regulatory mandate | Williams: Court may deem the permit invalid if renewal did not meet regulatory proficiency requirements | Held: Court erred to require proficiency testing for renewal where the rules do not so mandate; ODH’s issuance of a permit suffices unless rule language requires otherwise |
| Whether the breath test result was inadmissible under R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b) because the analyst lacked a valid permit | State: Knowlton possessed a valid, in-effect ODH senior operator permit authorizing BAC DataMaster tests | Williams: Permit's renewal was invalid for noncompliance, rendering the test inadmissible | Held: Test admissible because Knowlton’s permit was valid; suppression reversed |
| Standard for substantial compliance and who bears burden | State: Once State shows permit in effect and substantial compliance, result is presumptively admissible | Williams: Challenged specific regulatory compliance (proficiency procedure) to shift burden | Held: Substantial-compliance framework applies, but here the court’s legal reading of the regulations controls—no mandatory proficiency-for-renewal requirement found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (motion to suppress is mixed question; substantial-compliance standard for breath testing)
- State v. Baker, 58 N.E.3d 1114 (Ohio 2016) (defendant challenges to alcohol tests require State to show substantial compliance with ODH regulations)
- State v. Roberts, 850 N.E.2d 1168 (Ohio 2006) (trial court as factfinder on suppression; appellate review accepts factual findings but reviews legal conclusions de novo)
- State v. Homan, 732 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2000) (substantial-compliance excuses only de minimis errors)
- State v. Moore, 5 N.E.3d 41 (Ohio 2013) (admissibility requires testing method approved by director and analysis by person possessing a valid director-issued permit)
- State v. Dukes, 29 N.E.3d 299 (Ohio App. 2015) (permit issued by ODH establishes compliance with proficiency requirements at the laboratory level)