Urine Test Excluded; State Failed to Show Substantial Compliance
Charles is a frequent speaker and a prolific writer on all matters related to OVI / DUI defense.
- Image by owlbookdreams via Flickr
State v. Hoder, 4/6/2009, 2009-Ohio-1647, 9th District Court of Appeals
View Court Published Official Document
The Defendant in this case was arrested for drunk driving and submitted to a urine test. The test was properly marked and placed in the property refrigerator. Two days later the urine test was removed and placed in a bag to be sent to the lab. It arrived at the lab two days later. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress and the court overruled his motion. Upon appeal the 9th District REVERSED finding that the State had failed to establish substantial compliance based on the testimony at the motion.
![Urine Test Excluded; State Failed to Show Substantial Compliance 1 Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6bceb2ce-00bc-4bab-aa2a-3fe13921af64)