Archive for December 9th, 2010

O.A.C. 3701-53-02, Approved Evidential Breath Testing Instruments

December 9th, 2010
Coin operated talking breathalyzer
Image by frippy via Flickr

Ohio Administrative Code 3701-53-02(A) sets forth the approved instruments for evidential breath testing in Ohio.  It states,

(A) The instruments listed in this paragraph are approved as evidential breath testing instruments for use in determining whether a person’s breath contains a concentration of alcohol prohibited or defined by sections 4511.19 and/or 1547.11 of the Revised Code, or any other equivalent statute or local ordinance prescribing a defined or prohibited breath-alcohol concentration. The approved evidential breath testing instruments are:

  1. BAC DataMaster, BAC DataMaster K, BAC DataMaster cdm;
  2. Intoxilyzer model 5000 series 66, 68 and 68 EN; and
  3. Intoxilyzer model 8000 (OH-5).

O.A.C. 3701-53-02(B) lists the approved testing instrument for violations of  R.C. 1547.11, Ohio’s prohibition against boating while intoxicated.  O.R.C. 1547.11(A)(1)  to O.R.C. 1547.11(A)(6) prohibit a person from operating or being in physical control of a vessel underway or manipulating water skis, aquaplanes, or similar devices while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Only the Intoxilyzer 8000 has been approved pursuant to this section.  Section (B) states,

(B) The instruments listed in this paragraph are approved as additional evidential breath testing instruments for use in determining whether a person’s breath contains a concentration of alcohol prohibited or defined by section 1547.11 of the Revised Code, or any other equivalent statute or local ordinance prescribing a defined or prohibited breath alcohol concentration. The approved evidential breath testing instrument is:

  1. Intoxilyzer model 8000 (OH-2).

O.A.C. 3701-53-02(C) limits breath testing to deep lung or alveolar air samples.  This section can be used by skilled attorneys to show that the sample given was not deep lung alveolar air, but was contaminated with residual mouth alcohol.  Using this type of a defense will require an experienced attorney and a competent expert witness.  Section (C) states,

(C) Breath samples of deep lung (alveolar) air shall be analyzed for purposes of determining whether a person has a prohibited breath alcohol concentration with instruments approved under paragraphs (A) and (B) of this rule.

O.A.C. 3701-53-02(D) and (E) incorporate the manufacturers’ recommendations on use of the breath testing machines and place the burden of adopting procedure on the Director of Health.  These sections provide as follows,

(D) Breath samples using instruments listed under paragraphs (A)(1), (A)(2) and (B) of this rule shall be analyzed according to the operational checklist for the instrument being used and checklist forms recording the results of subject tests shall be retained in accordance with paragraph (A) of rule 3701-53-01 of the Administrative Code. The results shall be recorded on forms prescribed by the director of health. (E) Breath samples using the instrument listed under paragraph (A)(3) of this rule shall be analyzed according to the instrument display for the instrument being used. The results of subject tests shall be retained in a manner prescribed by the director of health and shall be retained in accordance with paragraph (A) of rule 3701-53-01 of the Administrative Code.

CONTACT US VIA ANY METHOD PROVIDED BELOW! Visit www.DaytonDUI.comwww.SpringfieldDUI.com,www.OhioDUIdefense.comwww.KetteringDUI.com,www.BeavercreekDUI.comwww.FairbornDUI.com,  www.VandaliaDUI.com,www.HuberHeightsDUI.comwww.MiamisburgDUI.comwww.XeniaDUI.com orwww.CharlesRowland.com.  Immediate help is available by filling out the CONTACT form on any of these pages.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/DaytonDUI or Get Twitterupdates via SMS by texting follow DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and you can access updates by becoming a fan of Dayton DUI/OVI Defense.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@CharlesRowland.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (1-888-769-5263). For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at (937) 776-2671.

State v. Syx, 2010-Ohio-5880

December 9th, 2010
The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as see...

In State v. Syx, 2010-Ohio-5880, Judge Fain wrote for a unanimous 2nd District Court of Appeals holding that:

The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause provides that, “[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”  The United States Supreme Court has held that the right to confrontation is violated when an out-of-court statement, which is testimonial in nature, is admitted into evidence without the defendant having had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Crawford v. Washinton (2004), 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177.

In this case, the defendant argued that he was denied his right of confrontation when the State, failed to call the phlebotomist who drew his blood.  The prosecution argued that this right was not violated because the phlebotomist had testified at the motion to suppress hearing.  The Court of Appeals rejected this argument.  The government then tried to argue that if he wanted to confront the witness, then the defendant should have subpoenaed the witness himself.  The Court rejected this approach, holding, “[T]he Confrontation Clause imposes a burden on the prosecution to present its witnesses, not on the defendant to bring those adverse witnesses to court.”  Continuing on, “Without the testimony of witnesses with first-hand knowledge, the test results should not have been admitted into evidence.”

The Court also reiterated its prior rulings that allow a DUI defendant to challenge the chemical test at trial even when a full motion to suppress was held.  “This does not mean, however, that the defendant may not challenge the chemical test results at trial under the Rules of Evidence.  Evidentiary objections challenging the competency, admissibility, relevancy, authenticity, and credibility of the chemical test result may still be raised.” State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446.  The defendant is only prevented in challenging that the test results were not obtained in compliance with the established administrative guidelines.

If you have questions about your Sixth Amendment rights in a drunk driving case, contact Dayton DUI Lawyer Charles M. Rowland II at 937-318-1DUI or 1-888-ROWLAND.

Enhanced by Zemanta