The Wilmington Pike and the Dorothy Lane/Wilmington Pike intersection are now under construction. This may cause travel delays over the next several months. If you are arrested for DUI (arrested for OVI) in the communities of Centerville, Kettering, Moraine and Washington Township and have to make an appearance in the Kettering Municipal Court, please allow extra time. The Kettering Municipal Court is located at 2325 Wilmington Pike, Kettering, Ohio 45420 and is open Monday through Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.
Charles M. Rowland provides representation for Kettering OVI arrests. Find out more by visiting www.KetteringDUI.com.
TESTIMONIAL vs. NONTESTIMONIAL
In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 110 S.Ct.2638 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that slurred speech and the muscle coordination (or lack thereof) required to complete the standardized field sobriety tests amount to nontestimonial information that does not fall within the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and does not invoke the safeguards of Miranda warnings. They held that standardized field sobriety tests are “real” tests and/or tests of a “physical” variety. This ruling was consistent with its holding in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), which held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not extend to blood results.
However, under some circumstances Miranda will be triggered if the officer asks questions which are sufficiently testimonial as to be used to prove intoxication. For example, asking a persons name is non-testimonial “routine” question which would not invoke Miranda. Asking the subject to calculate the date of his sixth birthday, however, would invoke Miranda because it is designed to be used as evidence of intoxication.
This has been a really useful argument in some of my recent motions to suppress and puts the officers on tilt. We have some very good, very experienced officers who get the subject to talk and talk and talk. Often, these statements are incredibly incriminating. If the question is designed to illicit incriminating statements, you should challenge it based on the case law above. Why would an officer ask your client to count from 13 to 29? Why else would a trooper ask your client to say the alphabet from “D” to “Q”? If you find yourself in need of an aggressive and credentialed Dayton OVI attorney, contact Charles M. Rowland II today at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384).
NO SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS TONIGHT!
We have checked with our regular sources and are happy to report that there are no Sobriety Checkpoints scheduled for June 11th. We will keep you posted as we receive more information.
WHY DO YOU DO THIS? Law enforcement holds sobriety checkpoints to instill fear of arrest in the general public. Their philosophy is that one of the major justifications for sobriety checkpoints is that the public learns law enforcement is actively rooting out drunk driving offenses. Thus, the more the sobriety checkpoint is publicized, the better. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States requires the police to notify the public of upcoming checkpoints. Ergo, publicizing these events helps deter drunk driving.
Charles Rowland believes that you have the right to know of sobriety checkpoints and that you should use this knowledge to make appropriate decisions regarding your use of alcohol. Given the irregularities of the breath testing machines and the pseudo-scientific subjectivity of the standardized field sobriety tests you may not wish to risk driving through a sobriety checkpoint after legally and responsibly enjoying an alcoholic beverage. Whatever your decision, please be safe and think of your fellow motorists.