Intoxilyzer 8000 test results in a West Chester traffic stop should not have been suppressed at trial, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals has ruled.

Intoxilyzer 8000 test results in a West Chester traffic stop should not have been suppressed at trial, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals has found that breath alcohol content results from a West Chester traffic stop should not have been suppressed by the trial court because the proper procedures in administering the test were followed. Accordingly, the appeals court reversed the decision by the Butler County Area Court III and remanded the case.

West Chester Police pulled over Lauren Dugan for a center line violation on March 12, 2011. After a series of sobriety tests, Dugan was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol after she gave two breath samples on the Intoxilyzer 8000.

Retired Judge William W. Young, sitting by assignment, authored the unanimous decision and discussed the admissibility of Intoxilyzer 8000 test results in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in State v. Vega.

“This district and others have universally recognized that Vega prohibits a general attack on the reliability of breath testing instruments,” Judge Young wrote. “Additionally, some appellate courts have interpreted Vega and subsequent Ohio Supreme Court cases to prohibit suppression of BAC test results based on any argument regarding the reliability of a breath testing instrument. Instead, the admission of BAC test results turns on substantial compliance with ODH (Ohio Department of Health) regulations.”

Judge Young wrote that the state met its “slight burden” by uploading Intoxilyzer 8000 records to the Ohio Department of Health website and that the state established that it substantially complied with other regulations by performing a “dry gas control” before and after Dugan’s breath test, not each individual blow into the device.

Judges Stephen W. Powell and Robert P. Ringland concurred in the February 11 opinion. Concurring separately, Judge Ringland urged the Supreme Court to revisit the Vega case because “courts have struggled with the interpretation of Vega” and that several “events signal a need for the Ohio Supreme Court to resolve these issues and confusion.”

State v. Dugan, 2013-Ohio-447
Opinion: http://www.sc.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2013/2013-ohio-447.pdf
Criminal Appeal From: Bulter County Area Court III
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: February 11, 2013

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.