Legal Opinion

State v. Yoder

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1993No. Nos. 92-953, 92-954 and 92-981PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

The question presented by these appeals is whether a new radio frequency interference survey must be conducted when the intoxilyzer is removed from its testing location for service and repair, and then returned to the same site and used for testing. For the following reasons, we answer this question in the negative.

Under R.C. 4511.19(D), the General Assembly has provided that bodily substances taken to prove a violation of the driving-while-under-the influence statute "shall be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the director of health * *

*517In addition,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. VegaOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. State v. AdamsOhio Court of Appeals · 1992

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State v. CollazoOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. State v. SchrockOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. State v. FunkOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. State v. WebbOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State v. BergmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API