State v. Plummer
This text of 490 N.E.2d 902 (State v. Plummer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the case sub judice appellant contends that in order for a urinalysis test result to be admissible in a prosecution under R.C. 4511.19,1 the urine sample must be treated in compliance with the [294]*294regulation set forth in the Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-05(F). For the following reasons, we find that there has been substantial compliance with this regulation and affirm appellant’s conviction.
Appellant’s test result showed a urine-alcohol content of twenty hundredths of a gram by weight per one hundred milliliters of his urine, in excess of the statutory limit set forth in R.C. 4511.19(A)(4). Whether a person’s blood-alcohol, breath-alcohol or urine-alcohol content is tested, R.C. 4511.19(B) requires that “[s]uch bodily substance shall be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of health * * *.”
In regard to the collection and handling of urine specimens, the Director of Health has promulgated Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-05(F) which states that “[w]hile not in transit to a laboratory or under examination all urine * * * specimens shall be refrigerated at a temperature of forty-two degrees Fahrenheit or below.”
In the case sub judice, strict compliance with this regulation has not been shown. In the one hour and twenty-five minute period of time between collection of appellant’s urine sample and mailing to Columbus, Eckstein indicated the specimen was not refrigerated. Further, Keckley did not say that appellant’s specimen was refrigerated during the morning of its arrival in the Columbus laboratory, prior to its examination around lunch time that day. If, however, we were to agree with appellant that any deviation whatsoever from this regulation rendered the results of a urine analysis inadmissible, we would be ignoring the fact that strict compliance is not always realistically or humanly possible.
This court, in State v. Steele (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 187 [6 O.O.3d 418], held that rigid compliance with Department of Health regulations in regard to alcohol testing was not necessary in order for test results to be admissible. In Steele, we found that the twenty-minute visual observation period prior to testing required by regulation had been fulfilled even though the arresting officer had averted his gaze from the defendant for a few seconds while the officer exited and walked around his patrol car.
Thus, there is leeway for substantial, though not literal, compliance with such regulations. In the case sub judice a period of one hour and twenty-five minutes elapsed from obtaining appellant’s urine sample until mailing. During this interval, packaging, labeling and delivery to mail deposit were required. Once received by the laboratory two days later, there was at worst a three- to four-hour interval when the specimen may [295]*295not have been refrigerated in compliance with the administrative code. We agree with the court of appeals’ reasoning that the storage temperature requirement of Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-05 contemplates cases involving longer periods of specimen retention, rather than a relatively slight delay between receipt and testing as in this case. Therefore, we find that the state substantially complied with this administrative regulation.
Additionally, appellant has not alleged at any stage of this proceeding, much less demonstrated, that he has been prejudiced in any way by the state’s failure to comply with the literal requirements of the administrative regulation regarding refrigeration of a urine specimen. Appellant simply has not demonstrated that this failure even affected the results of his urinalysis, much less that any failure to comply resulted in error detrimental to him.2
We therefore hold that absent a showing of prejudice to a defendant, the results of a urine-alcohol test administered in substantial compliance with Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-05 are admissible in a prosecution under R.C. 4511.19.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
490 N.E.2d 902, 22 Ohio St. 3d 292, 22 Ohio B. 461, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-plummer-ohio-1986.