Specificity in Suppression Motions Vitally Important in the Defense of DUI/OVI Cases

A recent Ohio court of appeals case illustrates the importance of specificity in preparing any motion to suppress. The case, State v. Fink, is an exceptional well written opinion the explains Ohio law regarding the requirement that Defendants must state specifically the facts and law the supports their request to have certain evidence suppressed.

In the case, the Defendant was involved in a one vehicle accident. The offices smelled alcohol on his breath and noticed his speech was “lethargic and kind of slow.” As a result, the officers asked the Defendant to perform certain field sobriety tests. At the conclusion of the tests, the Defendant was charged with driving under the influence along with other charges that are not relevant to this discussion.

The Defendant filed a motion to suppress all field sobriety tests. The state said “...the defendant, in filing a motion to suppress in a criminal proceeding, must "state with particularity the grounds upon which it is made and shall set forth the relief or order sought...This requires the defendant, in order to be entitled to a hearing on his motion to suppress, to state the motion's legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and the court on notice of the issues to be decided...Once the defendant satisfies this initial burden, thereby providing notice of the issues to be determined at the suppression hearing, the burden then shifts to the state to show the requisite level of compliance with the applicable testing standards.”

The issue arises when the Defendant merely states his ground in general terms. To quote the court, “The extent of the state's burden of proof establishing compliance with the applicable standards "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with the legality of the test...As a result, where the defendant's motion to suppress merely raises issues in general terms and is not sufficiently specific, the state's burden to show compliance is slight and it need only "present general testimony that there was compliance."

While the Defendant may set forth the specific issues in cross-examination of the officer, his failure to specifically state the issue nor cross examine the officer on that issue severely lessons the burden on the prosecution.

As the court stated, “...this court has repeatedly been faced with OVI cases where the defendant files a boilerplate motion to suppress that merely contains a laundry list of virtually every fathomable defect that could occur in the collection of evidence...Appellant's motion lists the evidence he seeks to have suppressed, including field sobriety tests and observations of the police officer, and is followed by a number of vague grounds upon which the motion is based, 4 including the general claim that "the tests were not administered in substantial compliance with the testing standards in effect at the time the tests were administered." These stated grounds, although sufficient to place the state and the court on notice that he challenged the administration of the field sobriety tests in general, fail to provide anything more than the same vague language that we have considered insufficient to raise the state's slight burden previously...In addition, appellant's accompanying "Memorandum in Support" is nearly entirely comprised of boilerplate language that does nothing more than relay legal concepts, only some of which were applicable, and provides only one paragraph evidencing the specific facts of the case.

“Further, although the necessary factual basis can be obtained during cross-examination at the motion hearing, appellant failed to do so in this case... After reviewing the record, appellant failed to ask specific questions during his cross-examination to support his claim that the NHTSA standards were not followed. Instead, appellant's cross-examination, which spans a total of four pages, merely consists of generalized questions regarding the road conditions observed and listed on the incident report, the arresting officer's observations during the administration of the field sobriety tests, and whether he was familiar with the NHTSA manual. As a result, we find appellant's questioning also failed to provide any factual basis with sufficient particularity to raise the state's slight burden of proof”

This case is testimony to the fact that a Defendant MUST state in sufficient detail the law and facts that support his motion to suppress, and in examining the police officer MUST produce evidence with particularity regarding the basis of his motion.

What is a “Per Se” Violation?

Ordinarily the typical DUI/OVI ticket consists of three violations - the underlining cause for the stop, ie., speeding, assured clear distance, weaving, etc., driving under the influence (see my prior post), and a violation of what is called a “per se” violation for failing a chemical test such as a breathalyzer, blood or urine test.

Black’s law dictionary defines “pre se” as “taken alone...unconnected with other matters.” In the context of OVI/DUI law, the term has come to mean without further physical evidence.

In the typical per se violation, the accused is consuming a volume of alcohol above the legal limit. These limits vary depending upon the type of test given - breath, urine or blood. These are considered scientific tests and Ohio’s DUI laws specifically states if you are driving a vehicle (see an explanation of “driving” in my prior blog) with a prohibitive level of alcohol in your breath, blood or urine, then you can be found guilty without producing any physical evidence that is required of an OVI prosecution (again, see my prior blog).

The admissibility of the results of these tests are dependant upon the arresting agency’s and testing organization’s compliance with the edicts of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) and The Ohio Department of Health.

Most breathalyzers and testing procedures are supported by the OAC and, therefore, the burden is upon the arrestee to bring to the court’s attention any anomaly regarding these procedures. Once the anomaly is brought to the court’s attention by way of a Motion to Suppress, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to prove that, in fact, the agency and/or testing organization substantially complied with the OAC and Ohio Department of Health. If the compliance with the procedural standards is less than substantial, the court will suppress the results of the test.

If the court is satisfied that the agency’s procedure was in substantial compliance and if the testing device and procedures are in compliance, then the results of the test are admissible.

Once again, and as I emphasized in prior blogs, the necessity of a trained attorney, who knows the law, to review the agency’s procedures is required if one is to expect their attorney to comply with the due diligence necessary to truly study and find any deviation from proper procedures.

What is “Driving Under the Influence?”

Many of those reading my blog are non-professionals seeking information about their charges. A number of inquiries ask what do the police need to prove. So, I will attempt to explain, in general terms, what the police need to prove. Note, the following is merely a general overview and should not be sued as a basis for one’s defense without consulting an attorney.

Generally, the law requires that the charging agency to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant’s intake of alcohol or drugs appreciably affected their mental or physical capabilities while “operating” a vehicle. In other words, the state or city must prove:

1. The Defendant ingested a measure of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and

2. That ingestion caused the defendant’s mental or physical capabilities to be appreciably impaired, and

3. That at the time of their impairment they were “operating” a vehicle.

Ingestion of alcohol or drugs. The state must prove that you consumed some quantity of alcohol or that drugs were present in your system. Proof that you consumed alcohol is evidenced by the smell of alcohol on your breath, any admissions made by you and other extrinsic evidence such as a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. Obviously, drugs are harder to prove as outward appearances may not be so obvious. But, it is important to note that drugs do not only mean illegal drugs but also include the use of prescription drugs.

Appreciable impairment. The prosecutor must prove not only that the defendant ingested alcohol and/or drugs but that consumption caused the defendant’s physical or mental capabilities to be appreciably impaired. This is evidenced by one’s demeanor - glassy eyes, slurred speech, lack of coordination, loss of memory, etc. Specific field sobriety tests such as a “walk and turn” test or a “one-legged” test is also used to examine the Defendant’s physical and mental capabilities.

“Operating” a vehicle. While the statute might state that you must be “operating” a vehicle at the time, the term in a misnomer. The vehicle need not be moving or be operated. As long as the vehicle is subject to movement, its is considered “operating” under the statute.. For example, assume you are on the side of the road, “sleeping it off” with the motor running. The courts have consistently found that this is considered operating a vehicle. And you will notice I did not use the term “motorized” or “automobile.” DUI convictions have been imposed on defendants riding bicycles. Nor does the vehicle need to be on the road. DUI conviction have been predicated upon those riding snowmobiles, boats and all terrain vehicles.

Note, the above is a discussion of DUI prosecution based upon physical evidence only. The police can also charge you alternatively with a “per se” violation if you submit to a breath, blood or urine test and the reading exceeds the minimum levels for that test. These tests, called “chemical” tests, do not require the introduction of physical evidence as they are based upon scientific testing. I will discuss this topic in a future post.