State v. Vaughn

2025 Ohio 2274

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 30, 2025
• Docket: CA2024-09-014
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Vaughn, 2025-Ohio-2274.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

PREBLE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-09-014

: OPINION AND - vs - JUDGMENT ENTRY : 6/30/2025

MARY DEANN VAUGHN, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM PREBLE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 24CR014272

Eric E. Marit, Preble County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kathryn M. West, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Vanzant Law Office, and James B. Vanzant, for appellant.

OPINION

HENDRICKSON, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Mary Deann Vaughn, appeals the decision of the Preble County

Court of Common Pleas denying her motion to suppress evidence. For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm. Preble CA2024-09-014

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} On December 4, 2023, appellant crashed her vehicle into a utility pole on

State Route 503 South in West Alexandria, Preble County. Local residents Alyssa

Corneilson and her husband heard the crash, immediately lost power to their home, and

called 9-1-1. The Corneilsons then went outside to investigate and found appellant

walking around her crashed vehicle and complaining of neck and back pain. A front seat

passenger was pinned in the car by a fence post. Deputies from the Preble County

Sheriff's office and emergency medical services were dispatched. Shortly after their

arrival, appellant was transported by ambulance to Miami Valley Hospital.

{¶ 3} Detective Forrer of the Preble County Sheriff's Department was dispatched

to the hospital to investigate. Upon his arrival, appellant was in a hospital room lying in

bed. Appellant was not restrained in any way, and the door to the room was open.

Detective Forrer did not Mirandize appellant before speaking with her. During the

interview appellant stated she was trying to avoid hitting a squirrel when she lost control

of her vehicle and hit the pole. Detective Forrer asked appellant if she would provide a

urine sample and she consented. Appellant also told Detective Forrer that her urine might

show the presence of marijuana and Adderall. The interview lasted just over three

minutes.

{¶ 4} A male nurse was present and assisted with obtaining the urine specimen.

The nurse utilized a one-time use disposable cardboard bedpan to collect the urine from

appellant. Although Detective Forrer did not independently inspect the bedpan, he could

see that it was made of cardboard and appeared to be unused before being placed under

appellant. Wearing gloves, Detective Forrer then poured the urine specimen from the

cardboard bedpan into a plastic vial (with preservative) from an OVI test kit provided by

Ohio State Patrol. After the sample was transferred, Detective Forrer disposed of the

-2- Preble CA2024-09-014

cardboard bedpan.

{¶ 5} Appellant's urine specimen was transported to the Miami Valley Regional

Crime Laboratory for testing, which revealed the presence of amphetamines,

methamphetamines, and benzodiazepines.

{¶ 6} On March 4, 2024 Appellant was indicted on three counts of aggravated

vehicular assault, three counts of OVI, and driving under suspension. Appellant pled not

guilty.

{¶ 7} On May 9, 2024, appellant filed a motion to suppress contending that (1)

the urine test was neither performed within three hours nor consented to within two hours

of the alleged traffic violation; (2) an alcohol substance may have been used as an

antiseptic; (3) the urine was not kept in a tamper proof container, and it did not contain

the name of the suspect, the date and time of collection or the initials of the person

collecting the sample; (4) the urine was not refrigerated while stored nor was it kept for

one year from the date of the incident; and (5) the urine sample was not collected by

qualified personnel. The motion did not reference any specific facts of urine collection and

did not raise any issues with the use of the cardboard bedpan or contamination thereof.

Appellant also sought to suppress the statements she made to Detective Forrer at Miami

Valley Hospital as the product of a custodial interrogation without proper Miranda

warnings.

{¶ 8} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to suppress on June 4,

2024 and Detective Forrer testified regarding the interview and collection of the urine

sample. On June 20, 2024, appellant filed a supplemental post-hearing brief asserting

that the State had failed to substantially comply with the requirements for urine sample

collection because it was unclear if the cardboard bedpan was sealed or sterile prior to

its use and therefore the urine testing was unreliable. The next day, by judgment entry of

-3- Preble CA2024-09-014

June 21, 2024, the trial court overruled the motion to suppress. Thereafter, appellant

entered no contest pleas to second-degree felony aggravated vehicular assault and one

count of OVI. The trial court sentenced appellant to an indefinite prison term of three to

four and one-half years for the aggravated vehicular assault offense and a concurrent

180-day term for the OVI offense.

{¶ 9} Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 23, 2024. On appeal,

appellant raises two assignments of error for our review.

II. Legal Analysis

{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 1:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE RESULTS OF TESTING OF A URINE SAMPLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS OF ABUSE AND/OR ALCOHOL.

{¶ 11} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that the State failed to

demonstrate substantial compliance with the regulation governing the collection of urine

samples as provided in Adm.Code 3701-53-06(D). Specifically, appellant asserts that

because the nurse who assisted in the urine sample collection was not specifically

identified at the suppression hearing, the sample collection was not properly witnessed

and could not be properly authenticated. Appellant also argues that the use of a cardboard

bedpan introduced an unnecessary step in the collection of the urine sample which

potentially exposed the sample to contamination, because Detective Forrer did not

independently inspect the bedpan before its use.

{¶ 12} "Appellate review of a ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed

question of law and fact." State v. Turner, 2020-Ohio-6773, ¶ 14, citing State v. Burnside,

2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court, as the trier

of fact, is in the best position to weigh the evidence to resolve factual questions and

-4- Preble CA2024-09-014

evaluate witness credibility. State v. Vaughn, 2015-Ohio-828, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.). "Therefore,

when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court is bound to accept the trial

court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence." State v.

Leder, 2019-Ohio-2866, ¶ 17 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Durham, 2013-Ohio-4764, ¶ 14

(12th Dist.). "An appellate court, however, independently reviews the trial court's legal

conclusions based on those facts and determines, without deference to the trial court's

decision, whether as a matter of law, the facts satisfy the appropriate legal

standard." State v. Cochran, 2007-Ohio-3353, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.); State v. Banks-Harvey,

2018-Ohio-201, ¶ 14 ("the appellate court must decide the legal questions independently,

without deference to the trial court's decision").

{¶ 13} In the prosecution of offenses for driving with a prohibited concentration of

a controlled substance or its metabolite, the court may admit evidence of the

concentration of metabolites in a defendant's urine at the time of the alleged violation as

shown by a chemical analysis. R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b). However, the sample must be

analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the Director of Health. R.C.

4511.19(D)(1)(b); see also R.C. 3701.143; Burnside, at ¶ 9. Accordingly, the Director of

Health has promulgated the regulations for the collection and handling of blood, urine,

and oral fluid specimens in Adm.Code 3701-53-06. Subsection (D) provides "The

collection of a urine specimen will be witnessed to assure that the sample can be

authenticated. Urine is to be deposited into a clean glass or plastic screw top container

and capped or collected according to the laboratory protocol as written in the laboratory

procedure manual."

{¶ 14} Once a defendant challenges the validity of a chemical analysis test by filing

a motion to suppress, the State has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the

regulations prescribed by the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). State v. Mayl, 2005-

-5- Preble CA2024-09-014

Ohio-4629, ¶ 49; Burnside at ¶ 24. "Substantial compliance is limited to excusing only

deviations from the regulations that are 'clearly de minimis,' i.e. irregularities amounting

to 'minimal procedural deviations.'" State v. Dugan, 2013-Ohio-447, ¶ 32 (12th Dist.),

quoting Burnside at ¶ 24. The extent of the state's burden of proof establishing substantial

compliance, however, "only extends to the level with which the defendant takes issue with

the legality of the test." State v. Nicholson, 2004-Ohio-6666, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). "Once the

State has met its burden, a presumption of admissibility is created, and the burden then

shifts to the defendant to rebut that presumption by demonstrating he [or she] was

prejudiced by anything less than strict compliance." State v. Ossege, 2014-Ohio-3186, ¶

21 (12th Dist.), citing Dugan at ¶ 32.

{¶ 15} Here, the State met its burden of proving substantial compliance with the

regulation's witness requirements. Detective Forrer testified that he witnessed appellant

provide the urine sample to a male nurse using an unused, single-use cardboard bedpan,

and Detective Forrer then immediately poured the urine from the bedpan into the plastic

vial from his OVI test kit and sealed it. There was no requirement for a witness other than

Detective Forrer. See Ossege at ¶ 23-24 (finding the State substantially complied with

the urine collection regulation where the same officer both witnessed the defendant

produce the sample and sealed the sample). The fact that the nurse was not specifically

identified by Detective Forrer is irrelevant, and in fact, the State provided copies of

appellant's medical records during discovery which included the names of all medical

personnel involved in her treatment.

{¶ 16} The more difficult issue in this case is the use of the cardboard bedpan in

collecting appellant's urine. In its answer brief, the State argues that it substantially

complied with the regulation, drawing a distinction between the use of the two verbs

'collect' and 'deposit' in the text of the administrative code. The State asserts the

-6- Preble CA2024-09-014

regulation does not require the urine specimen to be collected directly into the "clean

glass or plastic screw top container." Rather, the State asserts that the specimen could

be collected by some other means—provided there is a witness—only to be later

deposited into those specified containers. We disagree with the State's interpretation and

find that the use of 'deposit' in the regulation does not imply a transfer of fluid between

containers later in time.

{¶ 17} By way of comparison, Adm.Code 3701-53-06(B) states "When collecting a

blood sample," a non-alcoholic antiseptic will be used, but then subsection (C) dictates

how blood is to be subsequently 'drawn' via sterile dry needle into a vacuum container.

Subsection (E) simply states that "collection of an oral fluid specimen is to be done

according to the sample collection device instructions," without detailing the mechanics

of spitting or swabbing the mouth as appropriate to the collection device. These

subsections on blood and oral fluid collection do not imply the possible use of interim

containers. Finally, subsection (G) provides that all specimens will be refrigerated when

not in transit or under examination. Therefore, it is more appropriate to interpret the

regulation where 'collection' is simply a general term applicable to the entire process of

taking of blood, urine, and oral fluid for testing—but where blood is 'drawn' from the

subject to the vacuum container, urine on the other hand is 'deposited' from the subject

to the screw top container. The purpose of the regulation is to preserve the quality of the

specimen to ensure accurate test results, therefore the regulation dictates urine is to be

deposited into a clean plastic or glass screw top container. The regulation should not be

read to specifically permit the use of other containers.

{¶ 18} Nevertheless, circumstances may arise where, although less than ideal,

urine might initially contact some other apparatus or collection device after exiting the

body and before entering the screw top container. For example, a urine specimen might

-7- Preble CA2024-09-014

be collected using a catheter, or a hospital's portable urine receptacle. See State v. Abner,

2021-Ohio-4549, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.); see also State v. Eaton, C.P. No. CR 2014-01-0077,

2014 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 35516, at *21 (July 3, 2014). In these situations, the State may

still be able to substantially comply with the regulation if that apparatus or device is clean

and does not contaminate the specimen.

{¶ 19} Here, we find the State substantially complied with the regulation because

appellant's urine was collected in a clean, single-use, cardboard bedpan and transferred

into the appropriate plastic container from the OVI test kit immediately after. Detective

Forrer's uncontroverted testimony at the suppression hearing established he was able to

see that the bedpan was unused prior to collecting appellant's urine specimen, and that

it would have been apparent if the bedpan was wet or otherwise degraded. After the State

demonstrated substantial compliance with the regulation, the burden shifted to appellant

to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the use of the cardboard bedpan as "less than

strict compliance." See Ossege at ¶ 21. There is no indication from the suppression

hearing that the cardboard bedpan was contaminated and appellant only speculates that

it might have been. Appellant is unable to demonstrate actual prejudice, therefore

substantial compliance with the urine collection regulation is sufficient.

{¶ 20} Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 21} Assignment of Error No. 2:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT DURING AN INTERVIEW CONDUCTED AT THE HOSPITAL.

{¶ 22} In her second assignment of error, appellant argues that the interview

conducted by Detective Forrer on her at the hospital constituted a custodial interrogation

-8- Preble CA2024-09-014

and therefore she was entitled to Miranda warnings prior to being questioned.

{¶ 23} "It is well-established that before law enforcement officials question a

suspect in custody, the suspect must be advised of his Miranda rights and make a

knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights before any statements obtained during the

interrogation will be admissible as evidence." State v. Hernandez-Martinez, 2012-Ohio-

3754, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.). However, the duty to advise a suspect of constitutional rights

pursuant to Miranda is only required when the police subject a person to custodial

interrogation. State v. Byrne, 2008-Ohio-4311, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 24} "Miranda defines custodial interrogation as any 'questioning initiated by law

enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of

his freedom of action in any significant way.'" State v. Vansickle, 2014-Ohio-1324, ¶ 54

(12th Dist.), quoting State v. Matthews, 2013-Ohio-3482, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.). In determining

whether an individual was in custody during an interrogation, the court must examine the

totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. State v. Robinson, 2015-Ohio-

4533, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). A person is in custody if he is formally placed under arrest prior

to a police interrogation, or, if not formally arrested, when there is a significant restraint

on his freedom of movement. Id. This determination "depends on the objective

circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the

interrogating officers or the person being questioned." State v. Henry, 2009-Ohio-434, ¶

13 (12th Dist.). Therefore, "[i]n judging whether an individual has been placed into

custody the test is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a 'reasonable person

would have believed that he was not free to leave.'" Robinson at ¶ 12, quoting State v.

Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413, 429 (1995).

{¶ 25} In the present case, appellant was not being held for a custodial

interrogation when Detective Forrer briefly interviewed her at the hospital. While there are

-9- Preble CA2024-09-014

some instances in which the questioning of a defendant at a hospital may amount to a

custodial interrogation, that is simply not the case here. See State v. Fridley, 2017-Ohio-

4368, ¶ 37 (12th Dist.) (finding defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation in

the hospital where he was only restrained by an IV connection in his arm and he was not

otherwise coerced by hospital staff or police into answering questions). Although

appellant was lying in bed in her hospital room when Detective Forrer came to interview

her, she was able to walk and was not restrained. The interview lasted a short time, just

over three minutes, and the door to appellant's room was kept open for the duration, and

was only later closed to give appellant some privacy when providing the urine sample.

Appellant was not in custody, therefore Detective Forrer was not required to provide

Miranda warnings prior to interviewing appellant.

{¶ 26} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 27} We find that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to

suppress.

{¶ 28} Judgment affirmed.

M. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ. concur.

- 10 - Preble CA2024-09-014

______________ JUDGMENT ENTRY

The assignments of error properly before this court having been ruled upon, it is the order of this court that the judgment or final order appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to the Preble County Court of Common Pleas for execution upon this judgment and that a certified copy of this Opinion and Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.

Costs to be taxed in compliance with App.R. 24.

/s/Robert A. Hendrickson, Presiding Judge

/s/ Mike Powell, Judge

/s/ Matthew R. Byrne, Judge

- 11 -