Summary
The Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s suppression of blood-test results obtained from Jeffrey E. Brunty after a fatal automobile collision. The court held that Ohio’s implied-consent statute did not apply because the trooper lacked reasonable grounds to believe Brunty was operating under the influence, and that Brunty’s subsequent consent was coerced by the threat of forcible extraction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ohio's implied-consent statute authorized the warrantless use of reasonable force to obtain Brunty's blood sample despite the absence of reasonable grounds to believe he was operating under the influence.
- Whether Brunty voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw after initially refusing and then agreeing to accompany the trooper when told that force would be used if necessary.
- Whether the trial court properly suppressed the blood-test results.
Holdings
- Ohio's implied-consent statute is triggered only when an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person was operating or in physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Because the trooper had no such suspicion, the statute did not authorize obtaining Brunty's blood sample.
- Brunty's consent to the warrantless blood draw was not voluntary because it was obtained through coercion after the trooper told him that his blood would be taken by force if he did not consent.
Key quotations
“Under the totality of the circumstances in this case, we find Mr. Brunty’s consent was obtained by coercion.” (¶14)
“Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances.” (¶13)
Factual background
Brunty was involved in a collision in which the other driver was badly injured and died later that evening. The investigating trooper testified that he had no suspicion Brunty was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Brunty initially refused to provide any sample, but after being told that his blood would be obtained by force if necessary, he accompanied the trooper to a medical center and signed a hospital consent form before the blood draw.
Procedural history
After a fatal automobile collision, Brunty initially refused to provide a blood sample but later accompanied a trooper to a medical center after being told that his blood would be drawn by force if necessary. The trial court suppressed the blood-test results, finding that Brunty's consent was not voluntary. The State appealed after certifying under Crim.R. 12(K) and R.C. 2945.67(A) that it could not proceed on certain charges without the evidence.