ID: State’s failure to make offer of proof of justification for exigency left void in record that supports trial court’s findings

The district court affirmed the magistrate court’s conclusion that there was no exigency for a warrantless blood draw. The state sought to offer evidence of unavailability of magistrates, to which the defense successfully objected and it was struck. On this record, the judgment is affirmed. State v. Chernobieff, 2016 Ida. LEXIS 425 (Dec. 30, 2016) [Note: Based on the court’s citation of authority and lack of full explanation, reading between the lines, there was no offer of proof for the court to rely on to reverse. Prosecutor’s never have to make an offer of proof because they aren’t used to losing objections. See F.R.E. 103(a)(2) which restates the law everywhere.]

The dashcam video supports the officers’ testimony that defendant committed traffic violations backing down the street trying to get away from them, and that supports the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. State v. Green, 2016-Ohio-8353, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 5326 (10th Dist. Dec. 22, 2016).*