Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog
I recently came across this article in an Ohio newspaper: Judge Denies Motion to Suppress Evidence. What does that mean in a DUI case (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio)? When a judge orders that evidence is suppressed, the evidence is excluded from trial. That means, even though the evidence existed, the jury does not hear about it. The two general bases for suppressing evidence are: (1) violations of the defendant’s Constitutional rights; and (2) the government’s failure to comply with statutory (legislative) law.
Constitutional Grounds for Suppressing Evidence
In Ohio OVI cases, the most common Constitutional grounds for suppressing evidence are violations of the defendant’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the defendant’s right against self-incrimination. Those rights are guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
Search and Seizure. The detention and arrest of an OVI suspect are seizures of the person. The seizures must be conducted pursuant to a warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. OVI cases typically do not involve warrants, so the question is ordinarily whether the seizures were justified by an exception to the warrant requirement. Most commonly, the initial seizure of the suspect is a traffic stop, and the stop is Constitutionally justified if the officer has probable cause to believe the driver committed a traffic violation or a reasonable suspicion the driver is under the influence. The continued seizure of the driver for an OVI investigation (including field sobriety tests) is justified if the officer has a reasonable suspicion the driver is under the influence. The arrest of the driver is justified if the officer has probable cause to believe the driver committed the offense of OVI.
Self-Incrimination. When a driver makes incriminating statements, there are two Constitutional issues. The first issue is whether the statements are made voluntarily. The second issue is whether the law enforcement officer issued Miranda warnings. To trigger these Constitutional issues, the driver must be in the custody of law enforcement, and the statements must be made in response to questions from law enforcement.
Statutory Grounds for Suppressing Evidence
In Ohio OVI cases, the most common governmental failures to comply with statutory (legislative) law involve field sobriety testing and alcohol/drug testing.
For field sobriety testing, Ohio Revised Code section 4511.19(D) says the tests must be administered in substantial compliance with current testing procedures. Current testing procedures are contained in the manual ‘DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing’ published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
For alcohol/drug testing, Ohio Revised Code section 4511.19(D) says a driver’s bodily substance (blood/breath/urine/oral fluid) must be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the Ohio Department of Health. The methods approved by the Department of Health are contained in Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3701-53. To be admissible, alcohol/drug testing must substantially comply with the Ohio Administrative Code regulations.
Procedure for a Motion to Suppress Evidence
To request that a court suppress evidence, the defendant must file a Motion to Suppress Evidence. The motion must be filed within 35 days of the first court appearance, the arraignment. The motion must state legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and court on notice of the issues to be decided.
After the Motion to Suppress is filed, the court holds a hearing on the motion. For the Constitutional issues described above, the burden is on the prosecution to prove an applicable exception to the warrant requirement (unless there was a warrant). For the statutory issues described above, the burden is on the prosecution to show the field sobriety testing substantially complied with the NHSTA manual and the alcohol/drug testing substantially complied with the Ohio Department of Health regulations. At the motion hearing, each side may introduce evidence and make closing arguments to the judge. The judge then either issues a decision immediately or takes the matter under advisement and issues a written decision later.
Result of a Motion to Suppress Evidence
If a Motion to Suppress is denied/overruled, the contested evidence is admissible at trial. If a Motion to Suppress is granted, the result depends on the subject the motion. If the subject of the motion is the defendant’s statements, field sobriety testing, or alcohol/drug testing and the judge grants the motion, the specific evidence is excluded from trial. If the subject of the motion is the seizure of the defendant and the motion is granted, all evidence obtained after the unlawful seizure is excluded.
Motions to Suppress are Important
In Ohio OVI cases, the granting of a motion to suppress may have a significant impact on the outcome of the case. If a motion is granted, the jury will not hear about the suppressed evidence. For example, the jury may not hear the defendant ‘failed’ the field sobriety tests, the defendant’s blood alcohol content was .184%, or the defendant stated, “I drank eight beers and four shots”. If evidence is suppressed based on a search and seizure violation, the jury will not hear about any evidence obtained after the time of the unlawful seizure. For example, if the judge finds the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion of OVI to justify further seizure of the driver for field sobriety tests, all evidence obtained after that seizure is excluded (including field sobriety tests and alcohol/drug tests). An Ohio OVI attorney should have experience in effectively litigating motions to suppress evidence.