- September 27, 2018 |
- Category: DUI and Courtroom Process
For the past thirty years, defendants charged with drinking and driving in Ohio were prevented from challenging breath testing devices such as a BAC Datamaster or Intoxilyzer 8000. The reason? In 1984, he Ohio Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, State v. Vega, that specifically stated defendants cannot attack the general reliability of a breath-testing machine approved by the Ohio Department of Health. Thus, DUI defendants were precluded from utilizing this line of defense.
Fortunately, things changed significantly in 2014 when the Ohio Supreme Court issued a subsequent landmark decision that reaffirmed Vega, but clarified it’s holding to some degree. Specifically, the court affirmed that it’s still not permissible to attack the general scientific reliability of breath tests conducted on machines that were approved by the Ohio Department of Health. However, the court also stated that this does not preclude a DUI defendant from challenging the accuracy, competence, admissibility, relevance, authenticity, or credibility of his specific test.
In the recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, Cincinnati v. Ilg, the defendant was attempting to obtain very specific information and data on the breath testing device on which he tested. The prosecuting attorney refused to provide it in response to a discovery demand so the defense lawyer issued a subpoena to the Ohio Department of Health. The government continued to refuse and the trial court eventually ordered them to turn over all requested material. The information’s importance was stated in open court by the defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Alfred Staubus, who testified that “in order to evaluate the reliability of the test, this particular Inoxilyzer 8000 machine, and the testing procedures in this case, all of the documents requested of the State and Ohio Department of Health are necessary.” Even after the court ordered the government to turn the documents over, the government refused. As a sanction for lack of compliance, the court ruled that the breath test was not admissible.
As a result of the aformentioned case, defendants charged with drinking and driving in Ohio now have the ability to challenge the breath test results in their specific case.
