State v. Eads

• Decision Date: 06 May 2020
• Docket Number: NOS. C-190213,C-190214,C-190215,S. C-190213
• Citation: 154 N.E.3d 538,2020 Ohio 2805
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kyle EADS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

154 N.E.3d 538

2020 Ohio 2805

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Kyle EADS, Defendant-Appellant.

NOS. C-190213

C-190214

C-190215

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 6, 2020

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION.

Winkler, Judge.

{¶1} This appeal of a driving-under-the-influence conviction involves the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress medical records containing tests for intoxicants that hospital staff administered for medical purposes when treating the defendant-appellant Kyle Eads after he was seriously injured in a car accident. A law enforcement officer obtained those medical records from the hospital without a warrant, relying on state statutes that direct a "health care provider" to supply patient alcohol- and drug-test results to law enforcement when the requesting officer indicates that the individual is the subject of an "official criminal investigation * * * or proceeding." R.C. 2317.02(B)(2)(a) and 2317.022.

{¶2} We hold that the officer's warrantless acquisition of Eads's medical records was in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Eads retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the alcohol- and drug-test results created during his emergency treatment, even though R.C. 2317.02(B)(2)(a) and 2317.022 ostensibly required the hospital to comply with the officer's request for the information and the information is exempt from Ohio's physician-patient privilege. We further determine the officer's reliance on the statutes to obtain the records was in good faith, as more fully discussed below. Consequently, we hold that the exclusionary rule does not require the suppression of those unlawfully obtained test results. For this reason, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm Eads's conviction.

Background Facts and Procedure

{¶3} The undisputed facts show that Eads was involved in a single-car accident on 1-275 in Hamilton County in the early morning hours of April 8, 2017. Paramedics found him unconscious and transported him to University Hospital for medical treatment. As part of his medical treatment, hospital staff tested Eads's blood and urine for alcohol and drugs. Law enforcement officers from the Ohio State Highway Patrol ("OSHP") assigned to investigate the accident were unable to interview Eads at the scene or the hospital. Based on accident scene observations that gave them probable cause, they cited Eads for operating a vehicle while impaired ("OVI"), in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and two other offenses.

{¶4} Several months later, in furtherance of the investigation and pursuant to a written OSHP policy that has since been revised, an officer submitted to the treating hospital's medical records department a request under R.C. 2317.02(B)(2)(a) and 2317.022(B). These statutes provide a mechanism for a law enforcement officer to obtain certain alcohol- and drug-test-result records from a health care provider. The officer's written records request must identify an individual, indicate that the individual is the subject of "an official criminal investigation * * * action or proceeding," and further state that the officer

believe[s] that one or more tests has been administered to that person * * * to determine the presence or concentration of alcohol, a drug of abuse, a combination of them, a controlled substance, or a metabolite of a controlled substance in that person's whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine at a time relevant to the criminal offense in question.

R.C. 2317.022.

{¶5} These statutes further direct that the health care provider "shall" provide the alcohol- and drug-test results, "except to the extent specifically prohibited" by any state or federal law. R.C. 2317.02(B)(2)(a). The alcohol- and drug-test results, if any, are exempt from Ohio's physician-patient privilege in criminal actions. R.C. 2317.02(B)(1)(c). Ohio law further provides that the trial court may consider the results of blood and urine testing as evidence of guilt in an OVI prosecution for driving while under the influence of "alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them," in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) or "an equivalent offense that is vehicle-related," if the records are supported by "expert testimony." R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(a).

{¶6} In this case, after receiving the records request form, hospital personnel gave the requesting OSHP officer a copy of Eads's blood-and-urine-test results. Later, in response to the criminal charges, Eads moved to suppress evidence of the blood-alcohol-test results on the ground that the officer's collection of his hospital medical records was a warrantless search in violation of his privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.¹

{¶7} In response, the state argued that law enforcement's collection of Eads's medical records from the hospital pursuant to the statutes was not a "search" that triggered Fourth Amendment protection. According to the state, Eads lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the test results because the state laws required the hospital to provide the information to the police and exempted the information from the physician-patient privilege. Alternatively, the state argued that if the officer had violated Eads's constitutional rights, the exclusionary rule did not apply because the officer had relied in good faith upon a departmental policy that was based upon state statutes that have never been declared unconstitutional.

{¶8} The trial court denied the motion to suppress and, following Eads's no-contest pleas, convicted Eads of the offenses charged, including OVI. Eads now appeals that OVI conviction in the appeal numbered C-190213, contending in one assignment of error that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress.

Analysis

{¶9} Usually, our review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of fact and law. See State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. Eads does not challenge the trial court's findings, only its legal conclusions. Thus, we accept the trial court's factual findings and review de novo the court's application of the law to those facts. See id.

{¶10} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." The essential purpose of the Fourth Amendment proscription "is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Camara v. Mun. Court of City and Cty. of San Francisco , 387 U.S. 523, 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967), quoted in Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 2213, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018) ; Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757, 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966).

{¶11} Generally, a warrant must be secured for a "search" to comply with the Fourth Amendment, subject to certain exceptions that the state has not relied upon in this case. See Carpenter at 2221 ; Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 452, 459, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) ; Stone v. City of Stow , 64 Ohio St.3d 156, 164, 593 N.E.2d 294 (1992), fn. 4.

{¶12} Whether a search has occurred for Fourth Amendment purposes depends upon whether the person invoking the Fourth Amendment's protections can claim a " ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ " that has been infringed by government action. Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). This inquiry turns on whether an individual has a subjective expectation of privacy and whether that expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. See Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).

{¶13} In this case, the trial court determined that Eads lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the medical records containing the alcohol- and drug-test results. The United States Supreme Court has not addressed whether a defendant similarly situated to Eads has a reasonable expectation of privacy in medical records containing the results of blood and urine tests for alcohol and drugs, created by a hospital for medical treatment, that are not privileged under state law and that are the subject of a state statute providing law enforcement with access to the records for criminal investigations without requiring a warrant. This question touches on several areas of Fourth Amendment law that the United States Supreme Court has addressed, some of which we now review.

{¶14} The Supreme Court has addressed whether privacy interests are implicated in impaired driving criminal investigations when there is state involvement in extracting and testing of bodily fluids for intoxicants. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Wisconsin, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 2525, 204 L.Ed.2d 1040 (2019) ; Birchfield v. North Dakota , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 2175-2176, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) ; Missouri v. McNeely , 569 U.S. 141, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) ; Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Motorist have a diminished expectation of privacy " ‘because of th[e] compelling governmental need for regulation.’ " McNeely at 159, 133 S.Ct. 1552, quoting California v. Carney , 471 U.S. 386, 392, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985).

{¶15} Even though the Court has recognized that motorist have a diminished expectation of privacy, this state-action category of intoxicant testing is considered a search that triggers the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, subject to several well-defined exceptions that obviate the warrant...