Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog

Occasionally, evidence in Ohio O.V.I. (D.U.I.) cases comes from a blood sample taken at a hospital. When the blood sample is obtained in a hospital setting, issues arise regarding the admissibility of the blood test. One issue is whether the suspect's consent to giving the blood sample is valid. For the second time in a year, a court of appeals has concluded that a defendant's consent to a blood draw was not valid because it was not made knowingly and voluntarily.

The case in which the court of appeals reached this conclusion is State v.Rawnsley. In Rawnsley, the defendant was involved in a two-car accident and taken to the hospital. At the hospital, a police officer read to the defendant an Ohio BMV form that informed the defendant of the consequences of consenting to a blood test and refusing a blood test. Ohio's 'implied consent' law says there is an Administrative License Suspension for refusing the test or testing over the limit. The defendant consented to a blood test, and the result was presumably over the limit. The other driver involved in the accident was seriously injured, so the defendant was charged with Aggravated VehicularAssault.

The appeals court analyzed whether the defendant's consent to the blood test was valid. The court reasoned that, for the defendant to be subjected to an Administrative License Suspension, the defendant must be under arrest. As this defendant was not under arrest, she could not be subjected to an Administrative License Suspension for refusing the test. Because the officer erroneously told the defendant her license would be suspended for refusing the blood test, the defendant's consent to the blood draw was not made knowingly and voluntarily. As her consent was invalid, the blood test evidence was suppressed. The prosecution will not have to decide whether there is enough evidence to go forward with the charge of AggravatedVehicular Assault without the blood test evidence.

The officer was in a difficult position because he was following the typical protocol for O.V.I. cases, but there are some exceptions for unusual circumstances. The best practice for an officer in that position is to obtain a search warrant for the defendant's blood sample rather than relying on the defendant's consent. This case illustrates some of the complexities of Ohio O.V.I. law and the need for a skilled O.V.I. / D.U.I. lawyer.

R.W. lay in the hospital bed waiting for his injuries to be treated. A police officer came in the room and said she wanted to talk with him about the accident. The officer read to him the B.M.V. 2255 form regarding the consequences of taking and refusing the blood test. She asked him to submit to a blood test, and he refused. The officer wrote him a ticket for O.V.I. (D.U.I.) and imposed a one-year Administrative License Suspension (A.L.S.); the consequence for refusing the blood test.

We filed a motion to terminate R.W.'s A.L.S. At the hearing on our motion, the officer testified that she did not handcuff R.W. and did not intend to actually arrest him. She only intended to question him, request a blood sample, and write him a ticket. We argued that, based on the recent case of State v. Whitt, the judge should terminate R.W.'s A.L.S.

State v. Whitt was decided in August of 2010 by the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The facts of the Whitt case are nearly identical to the facts in R.W.'s case. In Whitt, the court reviewed the legislative language related to A.L.S. and concluded that an "arrest" is necessary before an A.L.S. can be imposed. In the Whitt case, the issue was whether the defendant's submission to the blood test was coerced. The officer told Whitt the consequences of refusing a test (an A.L.S.), but those consequences couldn't really be imposed; there could not be an A.L.S. because there was no arrest. The Court in the Whitt case concluded that the defendant's submission to the blood test was therefore coerced and consequently inadmissible.

In R.W.'s hearing, the prosecutor argued that R.W. was arrested, so the A.L.S. should not be terminated. The judge, however, concluded otherwise. R.W.'s A.L.S. was terminated, and R.W. got his license back that day.