Archive for January, 2010

Ohio OVI Law; State v. Reed (tipster reliability)

January 29th, 2010

State v. Reed, 2010-Ohio-299 (OH2)

Reed was arrested at approximately 12:45a.m. on February22, 2009, by Kettering Police Officers Schomburg and Woolf. Officer Schomburg testified that he and Officer Woolf were both in a UDF store on Stroop Road, in Kettering, and that: “We were just standing there talking, having a cup of, cup of hot chocolate; and then Patricia Wolfe, who’s a clerk at UDF she came running toward us and said that the defendant just bought some alcohol, bought some beer, and when he was leaving, he was stumbling, and he had a very, very strong odor of alcohol. She said that he was, he was drunk.  Subsequently the officers made contact with Reed and arrested him on various charges. Following an unsuccessful Motion to Suppress, this matter was appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals.

The 2nd District found that the clerk or “tipster” was sufficiently reliable to justify stopping the vehicle, holding: “Patricia Wolfe’s (the clerk) tip was both credible and sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior that justified the investigative stop of Defendant. The officers did not act on a mere inchoate hunch, as Defendant contends. Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by his stop.”  The case goes on to give a detailed analysis of the burden placed on the State to secure admissibility of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests.

OVI Checkpoint in Montgomery County set for Jan. 29, 2010

January 29th, 2010

The Combined Agency DUI Task Force of Montgomery County will operate a sobriety checkpoint on South Smithville Road tonight, Jan. 29.  The checkpoint will operate from 9:30 p.m. until 2 a.m. with the help of at least six area law enforcement agencies. “The checkpoint is designed to remove impaired drivers from our roadways,” Dayton police Sgt. John Ross in a news release.

DUI Busters on Craig’s List; Neo-Prohibition Rears Its Ugly Head

January 28th, 2010
Image representing Craigslist as depicted in C...
Image via CrunchBase

The latest controversy to hit Craig’s List involves “DUI Busters who target bars and make calls on patrons they feel are intoxicated. Is this the next evolution of the MADD neo-prohibition? This story is from a FOX station in Wisconsin.

Milwaukee, WI.  Jan. 22 — We’re all fed up with drunk drivers. Some people on the popular website Craigslist have decided they’ve had enough, and they want to put a stop to it. They call themselves the DUI Busters, but some are questioning their controversial tactics…

The so-called “DUI Busters” are trying to put a stop to it, and they’re bragging about their exploits on Craigslist.

The DUI Busters say they hang out in bars looking for people who’ve had too much to drink, trail the unknowing person to their car, then follow them down the road, and call 9-1-1…

Liz Rhode is firmly against drunk driving, but the Waukesha woman says something about staking out bars bothers her. She posted her point on Craigslist: How are they going to prevent the DUI they are following from from running through a red light possibly leading to a fatal collision. why not stop them before they get into the car. That’s is what a good samaritan would do.

Suddenly the debate over the DUI Busters was the hottest controversy on Craigslist.

The fact that FOX 6 was doing a story on DUI Busters even got some of the posters peeved. What really get them riled up were the guidelines on “How to Roll” when you make the 9-1-1 call – ”Tell them you’ve been following a driver that’s ’swerving everywhere’, and the clincher being they ‘almost hit a parked car’”

Whether it’s true or not, at least one DUI Buster admits telling 9-1-1, ”I lie to the police about the prospective drunk driver hitting a parked car when they didn’t. As long as you’re over the .08 you’re legally intoxicated if you hit a parked car or not.”, even though the driver wasn’t actually swerving or hitting anything.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Dayton DUI Treatise: What is an Invalid Sample Reading?

January 27th, 2010
The following article appears on www.AVVO.com.  Please visit me on AVVO where I have earned a 10/10 rating.
Charles Melville Rowland II
Written by: Charles Melville Rowland II Avvo Pro
Fairborn, OH  |  Avvo Rating: 10.0  |  Client Reviews (2) 5.0 star rating

The Problem

“I was standing by the machine. It beeped and the officer told me to blow. I blew and blew. The officer got really mad and told me that I was messing with the machine. He said I had to do it again. He took out one ticket and put in another. The next time I blew again…really hard. He told me that I was being difficult and told me that he was going to say I was refusing to take the test. This was horrible.” -Client Testimonial-

WHAT AN INVALID SAMPLE IS NOT

After hearing a story like the one above, the client hands you two pink BAC DataMaster tickets each showing a “invalid sample” reading. You can assure your client that he or she was not doing anything wrong. An “invalid sample” reading is NOT an indication that your client did not provide an adequate breath sample. If your client was fake-blowing or sucking in on the machine, it would produce a different result. The machine will produce an “INCOMPLETE TEST” or a “SUBJECT REFUSED? <y/n> response, depending on the particular software that the BAC DataMaster is using. In fact, if the machine does produce an “invalid sample” when someone sucks in, it represents a failure of the one-way valve and is indicative of a faulty machine. You should make a point of checking multiple calibrations to determine if the machine has been or should be taken out of service for repair.

WHAT AN INVALID SAMPLE IS NOT (PART II)

BAC DataMaster Sample Acceptance Parameters: 1. Minimum flow rate (~3.7 liters per minute) must be maintained; 2. Increase from one two-consecutive point average to the next be less than or equal to 0.001 g/210 L; 3. Minimum total volume of 1.5 liters must be delivered (that is less air than a two liter bottle of pop); and 4. Flow rate must drop below threshold (~3.7 liters per minute). An “invalid sample” result does not mean that your client blew saliva or another foreign body into the sample chamber. The plastic mouthpiece has a special chambered design which would prevent any saliva from getting into the chamber. As counsel, you should also guard against jumping to the conclusion that the “invalid sample” result was due to G.E.R.D. (Gastroesophageal reflux disease). This is but one of many pieces that you will need to construct a winning G.E.R.D. defense.

WHAT AN INVALID SAMPLE IS NOT (PART III)

Whenever you have a client tell you that the officer accused him or her of manipulating the blow when the machine renders an “invalid sample” test this means that you have an ill-informed or poorly trained operator. Keep this in your back pocket and move on the officer at the motion to suppress. Lock in the fact that he did not know the cause of the “invalid sample” actually was. This is particularly effective when you are able to present as your theory of the case that the officers “rushed to judgment.” “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client did not stand a chance. See how they treated him unfairly on the field tests and then how wrong the officer was to accuse him of faking a blow. Never once was my client treated as innocent until proven guilty. You can make that right by being fair now.”

WHAT AN INVALID SAMPLE IS

An “INVALID SAMPLE” response is an indication of mouth alcohol from the refluxing of alcohol containing stomach contents on the BAC DataMaster or alcohol trapped in the oral cavity. If you can imagine that a normal breath sample is represented by a bell-shaped curve. The presence of mouth alcohol sufficiently alters that bell shaped curve so as to alert the machine that it should kick the test out. This is done by a part of the machine known as the “slope detector.” A negative slope is characteristic of the presence of mouth alcohol. As the subject blows into the machine, the amount of alcohol in the mouth decreases, thereby decreasing the alcohol concentration the machine measures. The machine samples the alcohol concentration in the sample chamber every ¼ seconds. A negative slope occurs when three consecutive negative comparisons of two-point averages are obtained.

WHAT AN INVALID SAMPLE IS (PART II)

Some of the cause of mouth alcohol may include: food, vomit, dentures or other foreign materials in the mouth which may contain alcohol, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or some drug use. Some examples are Nifedipine, Nitroglycerin, Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (e.g., indomethacin, ibuprofen, naproxen, etc.). According to Dr. Alfred Staubus, “The machine is good at detecting mouth alcohol contamination if only mouth alcohol is present and there is little or no lung air alcohol. Slope detector often does not work if both mouth alcohol and lung air alcohol are present.” It is always a good idea to have an expert get involved in an “invalid sample” case early as they may be of assistance in diagnosing machine issues, or in identifying a valid G.E.R.D. defense scenario.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Science Wins at the Supreme Court

January 25th, 2010
The current United States Supreme Court, the h...

Image via Wikipedia

Today in an per curiam decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Virginia Supreme Court and remanded the case to Virginia in light of its recent decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.  This is good news for the lawyers and defendants everywhere that wish to challenge and/or rely upon scientific evidence in their trials.  It means that the government still has to bring live witnesses to trial to testify and be subject to cross-examination.  It was widely thought that the four dissenters in Melendez-Diaz granted cert on this case in an effort to quickly overturn Melendez-Diaz after Justice Souter retired and was replaced by Justice Sonya Sotomayor.  This decision is a victory for science in the courtroom and for the institution of cross-examination.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]