Title: Dublin v. Young

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

City of Dublin, Appellant, v. Young, Appellee. 
[Cite as Dublin v. Young (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Motor vehicles -- Driving while intoxicated -- Breathalyzer test -- Senior 
operator not required to check the performance of an operator 
with respect to the use of a breath test. 
 
--- 
Under Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(C) and former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-
07(B), a senior operator is not required to check the performance of an 
operator with respect to the use of a breath test. 
--- 
 
(No. 95-149 -- Submitted March 5, 1996 -- Decided May 22, 1996.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APC05-
769. 
 
On July 28, 1993, appellee, Eddie Loo Young, was charged, inter alia, 
with operating a motor vehicle with a proscribed level of alcohol in his breath 
in violation of Section 333.01(a)(3) of the Dublin Codified Ordinances.1  
 
2 
Young, on that same day, had been given a “BAC Datamaster” breath test, 
which resulted in a reading of .141.  He entered a plea of not guilty and 
demanded a jury trial. 
 
On December 24, 1993, Young filed a motion to suppress the results of 
his breath test.  In support of the motion, Young claimed, among other things, 
that the BAC Datamaster test result should be suppressed because the test had 
not been conducted by an operator who was under the “general direction” of a 
senior operator as required by former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(B).2 
 
On April 12, 1994, the trial court conducted a hearing.  At the hearing, 
Officer Kevin E. Rickenbacher and Sergeant Ray Scharf of the Dublin Police 
Department testified on behalf of appellant, city of Dublin. 
 
Rickenbacher testified that in October 1992, he was issued an operator’s 
permit by the Department of Health for administering BAC Datamaster tests 
and that he conducted the breath test on Young.  Rickenbacher further testified 
that Sergeant Scharf had his senior operator’s permit and that Scharf currently 
performed calibration checks on the instrument.  Rickenbacher indicated that 
 
3 
Scharf was not present when the breath test was administered to Young and 
that the most recent contact he (Rickenbacher) had had with Scharf regarding 
the BAC Datamaster was when Scharf informed him about the date of the 1993 
proficiency examination.  Rickenbacher also indicated that Scharf could be 
reached by telephone if a question ever arose regarding the instrument, but that 
he had never needed to call Scharf with any questions. 
 
Scharf testified that he held a valid senior operator’s permit for the 
operation of the BAC Datamaster.  The majority of Scharf’s testimony focused 
on how he conducted radio frequency interference (“RFI”) surveys on the 
instrument.  Scharf stated that he had tested the device on May 21, 1993.  
Scharf did not testify whether he had ever checked Rickenbacher’s 
performance with respect to the actual operation of the BAC Datamaster. 
 
On April 13, 1994, the trial court overruled Young’s motion to suppress.  
Young then changed his plea of not guilty to no contest.  He was found guilty 
of the charge and sentenced accordingly. 
 
4 
 
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals for Franklin County reversed the 
judgment of the trial court.  The court of appeals, relying on Aurora v. Kepley 
(1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 73, 14 O.O.3d 273, 397 N.E.2d 400, held that the trial 
court erred in failing to suppress the breath test result because there was no 
evidence indicating that Scharf ever checked Rickenbacher’s performance with 
respect to the use of the breath testing instrument. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary 
appeal. 
 
Ronald J. O’Brien, City Attorney, David M. Buchman, City Prosecutor, 
and Brenda J. Keltner, Assistant City Prosecutor, for appellant.  
 
R. William Meeks and Samuel H. Shamansky, for appellee. 
 
Carlile, Patchen & Murphy, Stephen J. Smith, Mitchell H. Banchefsky 
and Scott R. Mergenthaler, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Association 
of Chiefs of Police, Inc. 
 
DOUGLAS, J.     R.C. 4511.19 and Dublin Codified Ordinances 333.01 
prohibit the operation of any vehicle by an individual who is under the 
 
5 
influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse.  The Director of Health (“DOH”) is 
responsible for determining the methods for chemically analyzing the amount 
of alcohol in a person’s blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance.  See 
R.C. 4511.19(D)(1) and 3701.143.  In addition, R.C. 3701.143 provides that 
the DOH is required to “ascertain the qualifications of individuals to conduct 
such analyses, and issue permits to qualified persons * * *.” 
 
The necessary qualifications of personnel to conduct blood, urine, breath 
or other bodily substance tests and analyses are set forth in Ohio Adm. Code 
3701-53-07.  Specifically at issue in this case is former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-
53-07(B), which provided: 
 
“(B)  Breath tests used to determine whether an individual’s breath 
contains a concentration of alcohol prohibited or defined by * * * division 
(A)(3) of section 4511.19 * * * or any other statute or local ordinance 
prescribing a defined or prohibited breath-alcohol concentration shall be 
performed by a senior operator or an operator who is under the general 
direction of a senior operator.  General direction does not mean that the senior 
 
6 
operator must be physically present during the conduct of the test.  A senior 
operator shall be responsible for the care, maintenance, and calibration of the 
evidential breath testing instruments.”  (Emphasis added.)  1989-1990 Ohio 
Monthly Record 1315, effective May 5, 1990. 
 
In Aurora, supra, 60 Ohio St.2d 73, 14 O.O.3d 273, 397 N.E.2d 400, at 
paragraph two of the syllabus, we held, “Where the Director of Health, 
pursuant to R.C. 3701.143, promulgates a rule that a Breathalyzer test 
administered by one holding an operator’s permit is to be performed under the 
general direction of a senior operator, the senior operator is not required to be 
physically present when the test is administered.”  Additionally, in the body of 
the opinion, we interpreted former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(C) and stated 
that the term “general direction” required that “there be at least one senior 
operator who will care for, maintain and calibrate the equipment and who will 
occasionally check the performance of the operators.”  (Emphasis added.)  Id. 
at 76, 14 O.O.3d at 275, 397 N.E.2d at 402. 
 
7 
 
Young contends that the prosecution failed to prove at the suppression 
hearing that Rickenbacher was under the “general direction” of Scharf as 
required by former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(B).  In support of his position, 
Young relies on Aurora, supra, and urges that the term “general direction” 
requires that a senior operator “occasionally check” the performance of an 
operator regarding the use of a breath test, and, in this case, there is no 
evidence indicating that Scharf ever checked Rickenbacher’s performance.  
Young therefore asserts that the court of appeals was correct in finding that the 
trial court erred in not suppressing the BAC Datamaster test result. 
 
However, we believe that Young’s reliance on Aurora is misplaced.  In 
Aurora, we were asked to interpret former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(C), 
which, at the time, did not contain the language “General direction does not 
mean that the senior operator must be physically present during the conduct of 
the test.”  The defendant in Aurora was given a breath test by an individual 
who had a valid operator’s permit.  The test was not administered in the 
presence of either of the police department’s senior operators.  The trial court 
 
8 
concluded that the defendant’s test result was admissible in evidence and, 
consequently, the defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle 
while under the influence of alcohol.  On appeal, the court of appeals reversed 
the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court erred in admitting the 
test result into evidence because it was not conducted in the presence of a 
senior operator.  Thus, the only issue before this court was “whether the Court 
of Appeals was correct in ruling that in order for an operator to analyze the 
bodily substances in accordance with the Department of Health methods, a 
senior operator must be present when the test is administered under [former] 
Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(C).”  Id. at 75, 14 O.O.3d at 274, 397 N.E.2d at 
402.  In reversing the court of appeals, we held that the presence of a senior 
operator was not a requirement. 
 
Following our decision in Aurora, the DOH amended Ohio Adm. Code 
3701-53-07 and specifically added the language “General direction does not 
mean that the senior operator must be physically present during the conduct of 
the test.”  1986-1987 Ohio Monthly Record 617, effective January 1, 1987.  
 
9 
However, in amending the regulation, the DOH did not add language requiring 
that a senior operator check, occasionally or otherwise, the performance of an 
operator.  It can be presumed that the DOH was fully aware of our decision in 
Aurora but did not agree with our interpretation requiring that a senior operator 
should occasionally check the performance of an operator with respect to the 
use of a breath testing device.  As a result, we can only surmise that the DOH 
felt that such a requirement was not necessary. 
 
In this case, Young is essentially asking us to impose a requirement that 
is not contained in the regulation and was apparently rejected by the DOH.  In 
this regard, if we were to accept Young’s contentions and add the language to 
the regulation, we would be legislating by judicial fiat, which would undermine 
the discretionary authority that was delegated solely to the DOH by the General 
Assembly.  The DOH, not this court, was granted the authority to determine the 
qualifications and functions of those personnel who are to administer breath 
testing devices.  See State v. Yoder (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 515, 518, 613 N.E.2d 
626, 629. 
 
10 
 
Accordingly, we find that the court of appeals erred in determining that 
former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(B) required that a senior operator 
occasionally check the performance of an operator.  Thus, we hold that under 
Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(C) and former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(B) a 
senior operator is not required to check the performance of an operator with 
respect to the use of a breath test.  Further, we also find that under the 
circumstances of this case Rickenbacher was indeed under the general direction 
of Scharf as required by the regulation. 
 
The DOH has approved the BAC Datamaster as an instrument for testing 
the alcohol concentration in a person’s breath.  Ohio Adm. Code. 3701-53-
02(A)(6).  This device can be administered by two types of personnel; senior 
operators and operators.  Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(C).  To qualify as a 
senior operator or operator, the individual must be a high school graduate (or 
have passed the high school equivalency test) and he or she must have 
successfully completed a comprehensive training course.  Ohio Adm. Code 
3701-53-07(D)(1) and (2) and (E)(1) and (2).  The course ensures, among other 
 
11 
things, that a senior operator or operator is capable of properly administering 
the breath testing device.  See Appendix B to Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07.  
As an additional requirement, a senior operator must also be able to 
demonstrate that he or she can properly care for, maintain and calibrate the 
instrument.  Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(D)(2).  Further, persons who apply 
for or are issued permits are subject to survey and proficiency examinations by 
representatives of the Department of Health.  Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-08.  
These permits automatically expire two years from the date issued.  Ohio Adm. 
Code 3701-53-09(B).  To qualify for issuance of a new permit, a permit holder 
must present sufficient evidence that he or she continues to meet the 
requirements established under Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07, and he or she 
must successfully complete an “in-service” course.  Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-
09(C)(1) and(3). 
 
In the case at bar, testimony during the suppression hearing revealed that 
at the time of Young’s breath test, Scharf and Rickenbacher held valid permits 
for operating the BAC Datamaster.  According to Rickenbacher, to maintain his 
 
12 
operator’s permit he was required to take a proficiency exam every year and a 
written exam every two years.  Rickenbacher also testified that when he took 
his 1993 proficiency test, Scharf and a representative from the Department of 
Health were present at the examination.  In addition, Rickenbacher indicated 
that Scharf was readily accessible if any questions ever arose regarding the 
BAC Datamaster.  In light of these facts, we disagree with Young’s contention 
that the Dublin Police Department, in administering the breath test in question, 
failed to comply with former Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07(B). 
 
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment reversed.   
 
MOYER, C.J., M.L. RESNICK, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
 
13 
FOOTNOTES: 
1 
Section 333.01(a)(3) of the Dublin Codified Ordinances provides that: 
 
“(a)  Operation Generally.  No person shall operate any vehicle within 
the Municipality, if any of the following apply: 
 
“* * * 
 
“(3)  The person has a concentration of ten-hundredths (0.10) of one 
gram or more by weight of alcohol per 210 liters of his breath[.]” 
 
This section is similar to R.C. 4511.19(A)(3). 
2 
Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-07 has been amended on two occasions since 
Young filed his motion to suppress.  This regulation was amended effective 
September 14, 1994 and December 12, 1994.  The portion of Ohio Adm. Code 
3701-53-07 specifically at issue in this appeal is now contained in paragraph 
(C) of the regulation.  The current regulation differs only in correcting a 
typographical error and adding a reference to new R.C. 4511.19(B)(2).