In State v. Smith, 82 Ohio Misc. 2d 16, 676 N.E.2d 192 (Ohio Mun. Ct. 1996), the laboratory received a urine sample at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, and tested the sample at 8:30 a.m. on May 22, 1996. See 676 N.E.2d at 194. However, the court suppressed the test results due to the fact that the property-control log contained no information as to whether and when the sample was refrigerated and by whom the sample was placed in the refrigerator prior to testing. See id.; See also City of Mason v. Murphy, 123 Ohio App. 3d 592, 704 N.E.2d 1260, 1262 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) ("Substantial compliance with Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-05(F) cannot be shown when no evidence is presented concerning the refrigeration temperature when the blood sample was stored for approximately one week."). The Ohio precedent is admittedly not perfectly applicable here for one reason. In contrast to the instant case, the administrative rule there provided for the preservation of the blood and urine samples from collection to testing, and therefore the analysis focused on whether the State substantially complied with the stated rules. Nevertheless, these cases underscore the necessity to provide for specific written guidelines with regard to the refrigeration of samples from collection through analysis