Case Title: Bolivar v. Dick

Citation: 1996-Ohio-409

Docket Number: 19950372

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
Village of Bolivar, Appellee, v. Dick, Appellant. 
[Cite as Bolivar v. Dick (1996), ______ Ohio St.3d ______.] 
Motor vehicles -- Driving while intoxicated -- Observation requirement 
of BAC Verifier operational checklist satisfied, when. 
 
(No. 95-372 -- Submitted at the New Philadelphia Session April 17, 
1996 -- Decided July 31, 1996.)   
When two or more officers, one of whom is a certified operator of the BAC 
Verifier, observe a defendant continuously for twenty minutes or more 
prior to the administration of a breath-alcohol test, the observation 
requirement of the BAC Verifier operational checklist has been satisfied. 
 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Tuscarawas County, No. 
94AP040025. 
 
On January 10, 1993, Patrolman James Goodall of the Bolivar Police 
Department arrested appellant, Jessica Dick, for driving under the influence of 
alcohol.  Goodall transported Dick to the Ohio State Highway Patrol post in 
New Philadelphia, where a BAC Verifier test was administered by Trooper 
Andrew Slezak, a certified operator of the BAC Verifier.  Patrolman Goodall 
 
2
observed Dick continuously for over one-half hour prior to arriving at the 
Highway Patrol station; upon their arrival, Trooper Slezak observed Dick for 
“roughly sixteen minutes” prior to administering the BAC Verifier test.  Dick’s 
breath-alcohol level exceeded the prohibited level and she was charged with 
violating village of Bolivar Ordinance 434.01(A)(3). 
 
The trial court granted Dick’s motion to suppress the results of the BAC 
Verifier test because the twenty-minute observation requirement of the 
operational checklist in the BAC Verifier Report Form (see Appendix A) had 
not been complied with by Trooper Slezak.  The court of appeals reversed, 
finding that together Patrolman Goodall and Trooper Slezak had substantially 
complied with the twenty-minute observation requirement 
 
The court of appeals entered an order certifying a conflict with other 
jurisdictions on the following issue:  “Whether, in a prosecution pursuant to 
R.C. 4511.19, the result of a breath-alcohol content test is admissible where the 
Department of Health regulation that the subject be observed for twenty 
minutes before administration of the test is satisfied in whole or in part by 
 
3
someone other than the operator of the testing equipment.”  The cause is now 
before this court upon our determination that a conflict exists. 
 
Richard L. Fox, Bolivar Solicitor, for appellee. 
 
William K. Hanner, for appellant. 
 
PFEIFER, J.  There is no dispute about the facts in this case.  Jessica Dick 
was arrested for driving under the influence.  She took a breath-alcohol test on 
the BAC Verifier and the results were above the level prohibited by Bolivar 
Ordinance 434.01(A)(3) and by R.C. 4511.19.1  The only issue is whether, in a 
prosecution pursuant to R.C. 4511.19 (or any similar municipal ordinance), the 
result of a breath-alcohol test is admissible when the Department of Health 
regulation which requires the subject to be observed for twenty minutes prior to 
administration of the test is satisfied in whole or in part by someone other than 
the operator of the testing instrument. 
 
R.C. 4511.19 (D) states that any bodily substance collected for the 
purpose of determining whether a person is in violation of the statute “shall be 
analyzed in accordance with the methods approved by the director of health 
 
4
***.”  Regulations promulgated by the Director of Health in Ohio Adm.Code 
3701-53-02 (B) state in pertinent part that “[b]reath samples shall be analyzed 
according to the operational checklist for the instrument being used.”  Thus, the 
operational checklist, which is part of the BAC Verifier Test Report Form (see 
Appendix A), provides the “methods approved by the director of health” for the 
operation of the BAC Verifier.   
 
The first item on the operational checklist is “Observe subject for twenty 
minutes prior to testing to prevent oral intake of any material.”  It is clear that 
the focus of this item is “to prevent oral intake of any material” and not to 
ensure that a certified operator does the observing.  See State v. Steele (1977), 
52 Ohio St.2d 187, 6 O.O.3d 418, 370 N.E.2d 740.  Further, under the holding 
of State v. Plummer (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 292, 22 OBR 461, 490 N.E.2d 902,  
at paragraph one of the syllabus, “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.”  With respect to the issue 
before us, we see little difference between a urine-alcohol test and a breath-
 
5
alcohol test and adopt the holding of Plummer to the case at hand.  
Accordingly, we hold that when two or more officers, one of whom is a 
certified operator of the BAC Verifier, observe a defendant continuously for 
twenty minutes or more prior to the administration of a breath-alcohol test, the 
twenty-minute observation requirement of the BAC Verifier operational 
checklist has been satisfied.      
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed, and the case is 
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 
 
 
Judgment affirmed 
 
 
and cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and STRATTON, 
JJ., concur. 
 
FOOTNOTE 
 
1  Bolivar Ordinance 434.01 (A)(3) is substantially similar to R.C. 
4511.19(A).  “Because the local ordinance is patterned after R.C. 4511.19, our 
 
6
analysis refers to R.C. 4511.19 and the relevant case law interpreting that 
statute.”  Defiance v. Kretz (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 573 N.E.2d 32, 34.