Ohio Supreme Court rules against DUI blood test on a technicality
An editorial in The Toledo Blade of Toledo, Ohio has scathing words for the state's supreme court regarding a recent decision.
In 2000, a drunk driver, John Mayl, killed a construction worker, Lorna Dingess, with his pickup truck. Dingess was working with a crew that was repairing potholes on Interstate 75. While Mayl was treated at a local hospital for injuries, a sample of his blood was taken. Testing showed his blood-alcohol content at 0.207, far above the legal limit of 0.08 and strong evidence against Mayl in an aggravated DUI criminal homicide case.
However, the court, in a 4-3 decision ruled that the blood test evidence, and thus Mayl's conviction, was invalid. The reason was a technicality; the hospital had no state health department certification to perform such a test. Furthermore, the hospital threw the sample away five days later instead of storing the sample for one year. There was no argument that the driver was legally drunk, nor even with the results of the test itself, nor that anyone at the hospital administered the test incorrectly, according to the court's report.
While Mayl sidestepped the conviction because of this technicality, he pled no contest and a criminal court sentenced him to four years in prison. He was later released on appeal after serving one year.
The editorial argued that the court's decision which reversed at least half a dozen appellate court rulings while upholding the letter of the law, makes it harder for law enforcement officers and prosecution attorneys to stem the flow of the "menace" of DUI. None of the hospitals in Toledo has the aforementioned state certification for DUI blood tests. Said certification, according to the newspaper's editors, appears to be merely a function of paperwork, not training or technology. Therefore, hospitals in Toledo and throughout the state now have to go to the time and expense of either state certification or getting the law amended or both.
The conclusion of the editors is that the court’s by-the-book decision serves only to create "an additional hoop for authorities to jump through." The editors find this especially frustrating in light of the complex DUI statutes that already exist in Ohio.