OH4: Ohio implied consent statute for blood draw survives Birchfield

“It is true that the United States Supreme Court has recently determined, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 2162, 2172-2186 (2016), that ‘the taking of a blood sample or the administration of a breath test is search[,]’ and that ‘[t]he Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrest for drunk driving but not warrantless blood tests.’ However, after thorough research, we are not persuaded that the holding in Birchfield invalidates the blood draw at issue sub judice, or Ohio’s Implied Consent statute, in general.” State v. Barnhart, 2019-Ohio-1184, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 1270 (4th Dist. Mar. 29, 2019).

Defendant’s suppression issues were previously fully briefed and rejected. Defendant untimely sought reconsideration, but the court goes into it in patient detail anyway reaffirming all the prior rulings on alleged lack of probable cause and nexus. There are no new factual claims. United States v. Baer, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51573 (D. N.J. Mar. 27, 2019).*