Blog

Huber Heights OVI

00Huber Heights DUITags: , , , , , , , , , ,

huber heights oviIf you are arrested for misdemeanor OVI in Huber Heights, your Huber Heights OVI case will be in the Montgomery County Municipal Court (Eastern Division). Many refer to this court as the Huber Heights Municipal Court.  In fact, the court’s jurisdiction is larger. It covers regions in north-east Montgomery County including the city of Riverside, Ohio.

You can rest assured that the government is going to do everything they can to try to convict you of Operating a Vehicle While Impaired (OVI). An arrest is a life-altering event with repercussions that may last for years to come. Whether a bad decision brought you to this point or you were wrongfully arrested, it doesn’t matter; decisive action is necessary. Make the call to an experienced and credentialed OVI professional who is equipped with the knowledge, the expert resources and the skills to win your Huber Heights OVI case.

Today, you have an opportunity to make the right decision — a decision that may save you months in jail, thousands of dollars and a permanent criminal record. Most people arrested for an OVI are good people who just made a mistake or are wrongfully accused of something they did not do. What does this mean to you? It means that if you are stopped and the police are of the opinion you are intoxicated, you are going to be arrested. Now you are facing serious charges and possible jail time. There are ways to fight to avoid these consequences with the help of Huber Heights OVI attorney Charles M. Rowland II and his team of experts.

The Montgomery County Area Two Court is located at 6111 Taylorsville Rd., Huber Heights, OH 45424-2951. You can contact the court’s Traffic/Criminal Division at (937) 496-7231, the Civil Division at (937) 225-5824 and you can fax information to (937) 496-7236.

We have been helping people accused of a Huber Heights OVI for over twenty years. If you have questions about your case we can help.
4th Amendment

OVI: Aggravated Vehicular Homicide

00DUI Felony

Aggravated Vehicular Homicide, O.R.C. 2903.06, is a crime that results from the death of another caused by the defendant’s operating a vehicle while impaired. (a violation of R.C. 4511.19 -OVI) You can also be charge for driving negligently or recklessly under the law. The aggravated vehicular homicide statute encompasses driving an automobile recklessly or negligently (called vehicular homicide) whether or not alcohol played a part in the death. Often, defendants are indicted for multiple counts, with additional counts for each victim of the accident.

You Face Harsh Penalties

OVIThe penalties are harsh. Under the reckless section of the felony OVI statute you will be found guilty of a third degree felony which rises to a second degree felony if the driver is under suspension at the time of the offense. Aggravated vehicular homicide, when impaired as defined in R.C. 4511.19, is a second degree felony which rises to a first degree felony if the driver was under suspension at the time of the offense. Penalties include mandatory prison terms with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine for the 1st degree felony and prison up to 8 years and a fine up to $15,000 for the 2nd degree felony. If drunk driving (now called OVI; operating a vehicle while impaired) is charged as the proximate cause of the death, the penalties become mandatory and are very difficult to get reduced or lowered. Often, these cases are high-profile cases engendering much prejudice toward the defendant.

When you face these kind of penalties, you need an attorney with experience. I focus my practice exclusively on OVI defense.  I have the resources and the expert witnesses that can make the difference in your case. I offer a free consultation for all clients. I will work hard to make sure that you understand the charges, the process and your possible outcomes. Call me at (937) 318-1384 for a free consultation.

Kettering OVI? We Can Help

00Kettering DUI AttorneyTags: , , , , , ,

Kettering OVI Arrest? Call Charles M. Rowland II!

Kettering OVIYou thought an OVI arrest could never happen to you or someone close to you, but now you have suddenly realized you need help. You are probably asking yourself, “What happens next?” or “What do I do now?” For over twenty years we have been representing good people who face an OVI charge. Contact Kettering OVI attorney Charles M. Rowland II to protect all of your rights.

You can rest assured that the government is going to do everything they can to try to convict you of Operating a Vehicle While Impaired (OVI).  An arrest is a life-altering event with repercussions that may last for years to come.  Whether a bad decision brought you to this point or you were wrongfully arrested, it doesn’t matter; decisive action is necessary. Make the call to an experienced and credentialed OVI professional who is equipped with the knowledge, the expert resources and the skills to win your Kettering OVI case.

Today, you have an opportunity to make the right decision — a decision that may save you months in jail, thousands of dollars and a permanent criminal record.  Most people arrested for a Kettering OVI are good people who just made a mistake or are wrongfully accused of something they did not do. What does this mean to you? It means that if you are stopped and the police are of the opinion you are intoxicated, you are going to be arrested. Now you are facing serious charges and possible jail time. There are ways to fight to avoid these consequences with the help of Kettering OVI attorney Charles M. Rowland II and his team of experts.

Did you know: drunk driving in Ohio has been called DUI (driving under the influence), OMVI (operating a motor vehicle under the influence) and now, OVI (operating a vehicle impaired)?

DUI on the Water and the Return of Boating Season

00DUI & Boating, Physical Control, Reckless OperationTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Slalom skier

With the return of the summer boating season, many people will soon be enjoying Ohio’s beautiful lakes and rivers.  This is a reminder that Ohio is cracking down on captains who indulge in alcohol while on the water.  Boating Under the Influence is illegal in Ohio. 2001 Sub. S.B. 123, eff. 1-1-04 sought to unify the drunk driving provisions with Ohio’s boating laws.   O.R.C. 1547.11(A)(1)  to O.R.C. 1547.11(A)(6) prohibit a person from operating or being in physical control of a vessel underway or manipulating water skis, aquaplanes, or similar devices while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

O.R.C. 1547.11(A)(1) is the impairment provision of the law, preventing operation or physical control while under the influence.  The law also has a provision preventing operation with a prohibited level of alcohol which it sets at the same prohibited level (.08) as the DUI/OVI law Unlike the DUI/OVI law, there are no high-tier provisions which apply to boating. A third section of the law prohibits operation or physical control with a concentration of certain controlled substances (marijuana, cocaine, amphetamine, et al.) or metabolites of the same.  This section of the law is identical to the DUI-drug provisions found in O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(j).

Subsequent amendments to the law, 2007 Am. Sub. S.B. 17, eff. 9-30-08, allows for forced blood draws for persons with two or BUI offenses.  A BUI offense can be used to enhance a subsequent DUI/OVI  offense. O.R.C. 4511.181(A)(6)-(7).  Some important differences in Ohio’s BUI law, stem from the fact that Ohio does not require an operator’s license to operate a watercraft.  Therefore, no administrative license suspension provisions are in the law.  Instead, the chief of the Division of Watercraft gives written notice that you are prevented from operating or being in physical control of a watercraft (or from registering a watercraft) for one year from the date of the alleged violation.  Another key difference is that a fourth or subsequent BUI offense is not subject to felony enhancement.

Penalties for Boating Under the Influence offenses are set forth at O.R.C. 1547.99 and are similar to those provided for DUI/OVI offenses.  Boating Under the Influence is a first degree misdemeanor and is subject to a minimum 3-day jail sentence and a maximum 6 months in jail.  The 3-day jail sentence can be served in a qualified driver intervention program.  The minimum mandatory fine for a first BUI offense is $150.  A second offense within 6 years carries a mandatory 10 day jail sentence, but the minimum mandatory fine is still $150.  A third offense requires a minimum of 30 days in jail. NOTE: The Ohio legislature is constantly “tweaking” the Ohio DUI and BUI laws, so please check with an attorney as these laws may have changed.

Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (1-888-769-5263). For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting follow DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and you can access updates by becoming a fan of Dayton DUI/OVI Defense.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@CharlesRowland.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

The Drug War Theory -Jus Ad Bellum?

00DUI Penalties, DUI, Drugs & DrivingTags: , , , , ,

The Just War Theory (hereinafter JWT) is a subset of moral philosophy that addresses the questions about the moral justification for going to war (jus ad bellum) and the moral constraints on conduct within war (jus in bello). The theories underlying the JWT are illustrative of the rules used by attorneys in conducting the prosecution and defense of criminal defendants.  The five rules or requirements set forth to justify governmental aggression are: just cause, last resort, proportionality, right intention and right authority.

In war theory, the most basic rule of aggression is that one may only aggress if one has just cause. Once the legislative authority decides to proscribe certain conduct as being “criminal,” the rules of the Constitution, and the ethical rules of practice create a just cause for imposing the power of the government upon an individual citizen. So greatly do we prize our liberty that we have come to expect a trepidation in using the power of the State against the individual, that we follow the rules of JWT that aggression (in this case creating a category of crime) should be the last resort.  If another plausible alternative to government prohibition exists, the underlying theory supporting the State action is morally questionable. 

Let us now apply JWT to the current War on Drugs being practiced in ernest.  Is it morally justifiable to use aggression, via legislation, against drug users?  Many proponents of reform suggest that treating drug users as criminals is not morally justifiable.  Instead of using the power of the State to put these people in prison, the proper response is to shift the focus of State intervention to treatment.  In many countries in Europe, the State has taken the treatment approach with amazing results.  Ad bellum proportionality requires the aggression to be proportional to the harms caused to society.  The success of these programs calls into question the ad bellum proportionality of sending people to prison for long sentences, depriving their families of their support and causing a generational punishment.  It was the philosopher John Locke that sought to limit our “right to punish” because humans naturally tend to underestimate the injuries they cause others and to overestimate the injuries others cause to them.

As the War on Drugs progressed, it became apparent that it was having a disparate effect on poor communities and communities of color. The racist impact of the laws create a problem for Just War Theorists.  It was Thomas Aquinas who said that, “It may happen that a war is declared for a just cause… and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention.” see his Summa Theologica I, questions 18-21; for Aquinus on war, see ST II, question 40.  Many have concluded that the justice of the aggression was diminished or nullified by the racist ulterior motives.  Putting more African-American men in prison than were ever held is slavery violates the ad bellum rule of right intention.  The War on Drugs was also a war conducted not in the eyes of the public, but in the secretive world of prosecutorial discretion. The motives of local officials are not divorced from the passions of the community, nor are the subject to the oversight of the legislature. Instead, the ad bellum rule of right authority is called into question because of how we allowed the War on Drugs to be prosecuted.

According to traditional JWT, resorting to aggression is justified if and only if all conditions supporting the action are present.  If even one of these requirements are not met, the actions of the aggressor (in this case the government) are not morally permissible.  I think that strong arguments exist that would make prosecution of the War on Drugs wrong.  Apologists for the War on Drugs appeal to the morally important ends at stake – protecting our children from addiction and our communities from violence. But these arguments are undermined at every turn by not only the failure of the War on Drugs but by the failure to justify the continuation of the failed policies when clear alternative exist.

Having raised significant questions about the jus ad bellum justification for the War on Drugs, let us now turn to the method in which the “war” was being and is being prosecuted, to wit the jus in bello analysis.  Just as it is incumbent upon aggressors to weigh the costs and benefits of aggressing in the first place, they must also take care to ensure that their actions within the War on Drugs are proportionate.  Thus, are their beneficial consequences of aggression outweighed by the known and quantifiable harms.  Judges have to ask if weakening the Constitution to make prosecution of drug crimes easier is outweighed by the detrimental effects to our society.  Police officers have to ask if holding prosecutions over an addicts head so as to send that person into dangerous situations for more arrests is ethical. Prosecutors have to ask if making more arrests and sending people to prison for longer and longer sentences benefits the communities they are ethically bound to serve and protect.  Legislators must ask if the endless parade of mandatory drug sentences is serving to make our society better.  The “war” of a criminal trial has clearly delineated boundaries.  As a criminal defense attorney, the moral justification for punishment is met only when I provide a vigorous defense within the rules of the game.  If I fail to provide a proper defense or if I am prevented from making beneficial arguments on my client’s behalf, the “war” becomes unfair and the impact of the laws disproportionate.

The second in bello rule of aggression requires that agents of aggression must discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate targets. They are bound to distinguish between the innocent and those deserving of punishment. The entirety of the requirement of discrimination is reliant upon a good faith execution of the aggression based on solid information.  Is it not true that the War on Drugs has been a campaign fueled by misinformation, fear and undertones of racist memes?  Is it not also true that the continued targeting of Americans is supported by the desire for local law enforcement agencies to co-opt tons and tons of money? If there exists a financial incentive to target people for arrest, then no argument exists that the aggression is discriminate.

This article has attempted to set forth the reasons that the War on Drugs is not justified according to the Just War Theory.  Both the jus ad bellum and jus in bellum theories have been explored and found wanting.