In State v. Azbell, 112 Ohio St. 3d 300, 2006 Ohio 6552, 859 N.E.2d 532, the defendant was originally arrested at a pharmacy on May 30, 2003, for deception to obtain dangerous drugs. Officers took Azbell to the police station, where police provided her with Miranda warnings, gave her an opportunity to make a statement, and then photographed, fingerprinted, and released her. No charges were filed at that time, and Azbell was not indicted until April, 2004. Azbell was arrested on April 16, 2004, and was served with an indictment charging her with illegal possession of drug documents and deception to obtain a dangerous drug. Azbell filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that speedy trial time began to run in 2003 when she was initially arrested. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, finding that "it is either a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge that engage the particular protections of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment." Azbell, supra, at P11. The Ohio Supreme Court has held, "a charge is not pending for purposes of calculating speedy-trial time pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(C) until the accused has been formally charged by a criminal complaint or indictment, is held pending the filing of charges, or is released on bail or recognizance." State v. Azbell, 112 Ohio St. 3d 300, 2006 Ohio 6552, 859 N.E.2d 532, at P1.