Archive for January, 2011

Zero Tolerance for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs? (from NORML)

January 31st, 2011

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration posted a press release entitled “Drug Use Among Fatally Injured Drivers Increased Over the Last Five Years“.  The release summarizes the full report that examines the the drug test results of drivers who had been killed in automobile crashes.  While the report itself is objective and offers many caveats about reading it as an indictment of drug-using drivers as serious safety risk, the mainstream media hasn’t been as “fair and balanced” and the Drug Czar has jumped on the release to forward his agenda.

The headline from the Associated Press reads: “Gov’t: Drugs were in 1 in 5 drivers killed in 2009“.  The lede for the story is:

About 1 in 5 drivers who were killed last year in car crashes tested positive for drugs, raising concerns about the impact of drugs on auto safety, the government reported Tuesday.

Other outlets like USA Today give it a more chilling headline: “U.S.: Third of tests on motorists killed shows drug use“.  The discrepancy results from the AP considering all drivers who were killed when not every driver killed was drug tested.  The USA Today considers the “tests on motorists killed”, thereby discounting the 37% of killed drivers who were never drug tested.  Whatever – 20% of all drivers or 33% of all drivers tested – they’re dead, they drove, there’s drugs, be afraid!

The AP then follows with a second paragraph that points out the obvious logical fallacy of “correlation = causation” – just because dead drivers had drugs in their system doesn’t mean drugs caused the accident that killed them - something the USA Today article never addresses:

Researchers with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the new data underscored a growing problem of people driving with drugs in their systems. But they cautioned that it was not clear that drugs caused the crashes and more research was needed to determine how certain drugs can hinder a person’s ability to drive safely.

However, while AP doesn’t get around to distinguishing what exactly “drugs” refers to until paragraph seven, USA Today opens by explaining we’re talking about all drugs, prescription and recreational:

One-third of all the drug tests done on drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents came back positive for drugs ranging from hallucinogens to prescription pain killers last year — a 5 percentage point increase since 2005, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported Tuesday.

Nobody recommends driving while impaired by drugs – legal or illegal.  NORML has maintained this as a core Principle of Responsible Use for years.  But there are many legal prescription drugs that will cause impairment that bear the warning “Until you know how you may be affected by this drug, do not drive or operate heavy machinery,” which suggests to me that once you do know how it affects you, it’s your judgment call.  In fact, one of those drugs is prescription dronabinol, the synthetic cannabinoid THC marketed as “Marinol”.

AP’s seventh paragraph also points out that presence of a drug in your system may have no bearing on whether that drug was impairing you in the first place:

The tests took into account both legal and illegal drugs, including heroin, methadone, morphine, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, LSD, prescription drugs and inhalants. The amount of time the drug could linger in the body varied by drug type, the researchers said, so it was unclear when the drivers had used the drugs prior to the fatal crashes.

Cannabis metabolites can be detectable in urine for weeks and THC itself can be detected blood for at least six hours.  Most illegal drugs can be detected for a few days in urine and a few hours in blood.  Prescription drugs are just as varied.  So we’ve got 20% or 33% of killed drivers who had a drug in their system that may or may not have contributed to the crash that killed them and they may or may not have taken that drug before driving.

For comparison’s sake, USA Today links to the stat that drowsiness was a factor in 17% of all fatal crashes.  You just may be more likely to die in a crash caused by lack of a nap as by taking the pill to get a good night’s sleep.  Are you scared yet?  Well, you should be, because the whole point of scaring you about the drugged drivers is the push for nationwide zero-tolerance DUID laws.  Back to the USA Today:

Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, called the numbers of fatalities involving drugs “alarmingly high,” and called for more states to pass laws making it a crime to have illegal drugs in the body while driving, no matter how much. Seventeen states already have such laws.

The lack of research also presents a problem for lawmakers to develop laws. They can outlaw the use of all illegal drugs while driving, but what about someone who took a prescription sleeping pill a few hours ago?

Since they can outlaw the illegal drugs and there is no political cost in doing so, they will.  These “zero tolerance” laws means if they detect any metabolite of any illegal drug, you are guilty of driving impaired.  Since that joint you smoked could be detectable long after its effects had worn off, you’d be an impaired driver in the eyes of the law even if you were completely sober and unimpaired.  Since marijuana is detectable for much longer periods than most any other drug, legal or illegal, “zero tolerance” laws amount to witch hunts for cannabis consumers behind the wheel.

The irony here is that compared to the threat from drinking drivers, drowsy drivers, texting drivers, and prescription drugged drivers, the threat from drivers using cannabis is negligible.  Just last week we took a look at a study in the Netherlands that showed that experienced users can develop a tolerance to the psychomotor impairing effects of cannabis.  This summer we examined a study performed in Iowa and Connecticut that showed cannabis-using drivers performed as well on a driving simulator after smoking marijuana as they did before smoking marijuana.  (If you’d like the full examination of marijuana and driving, please see Paul Armentano’s impeccable white paper, Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review.)

As for the prescription drugs, there isn’t much political benefit in threatening a majority of your constituents, especially the older ones who do most of the voting, with a DUI charge for the pills the doctor required them to take every day.  Also consider the lobbying money and clout of Big Pharma that won’t look kindly on strict new driving laws that might cause people to use less pills.

No, the per se limit on prescription drugs isn’t coming to your state anytime soon… but maybe the end of driving privileges for cannabis consumers in your state is.  The seventeen states with current per se DUID laws are:

  • Arizona (except for medical marijuana patients), Utah, South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, Delaware, and Georgia already have these zero tolerance laws for any THC or metabolites of THC – if you toked within the past week, you could already be an impaired driver.
  • Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island have zero tolerance for THC in the blood – if you toked before bed you might be an impaired driver in the morning.
  • Nevada and Ohio consider you impaired if they detect 2 nanograms (2 billionths of a gram) of THC per milliliter of blood (2ng/ml) and Pennsylvania raises that limit to 5ng/ml.
  • Virginia, Minnesota, and North Carolina have zero tolerance laws for drugs that do not include cannabis or its metabolites.
Enhanced by Zemanta

“POINTS” on your Ohio License

January 27th, 2011
U.S. speed limit sign, MUTCD R2-1.

One of the most frequently asked questions to my staff involve the issue of POINTS on an Ohio driver’s license.  “Points” under Ohio law are set forth at O.R.C. 4510.036(C).  The statute lists the following as 6-point violations:

6 Point Violations
-Aggravated Vehicular Homicide
-Vehicular Homicide
-Vehicular Manslaughter
-Aggravated Vehicular Assault
-Willful Fleeing and Eluding,
-Failure to Stop and Disclose Identity at Accident
-Street Racing
-Driving Under Suspension
-OVI (drunk driving)
-Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle
-Any felony motor vehicle violation or any felony committed with motor vehicle

Four Point Violations
-Operation of a Vehicle After Underage Consumption
-Operation in Willful or Wanton Disregard of Safety (a reckless operation offense)
-Exceeding the Speed Limit by greater than 30 mph.

Two Point Violations
-Exceeding the Speed Limit of 55 by at least 10 but less than 30 mph
-Exceeding the Speed Limit less than 55 by at least 5 but less than 30 mph.
-Operating a motor vehicle in violation of a restriction imposed by the BMV
-Most other moving violations including operating a vehicle w/o a license.

NOTE: If you are nearing the requisite 12 points that will result in a separate license suspension you can attend a TWO POINT CREDIT COURSE as set forth at R.C. 4510.037(C).  For a more detailed explanation of the credit course or to consult with an attorney about your charge, contact Charles M. Rowland II or Mark Babb at 937-879-9542.

DUI Law: Challenging a Forfeiture

January 24th, 2011
stealing on flickr continues...
Image by lovelypetal via Flickr

FORFEITURE, WHAT IS THE LAW?

If you are convicted of any of the following the State of Ohio can, pursuant to O.R.C. 4503.234,  order a forfeiture of your vehicle:

  1. a third OVI w/in 6 years (O.R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(c)(v));
  2. any felony OVI (O.R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d)(v) and 4522.29(G)(1)(e)(v));
  3. a third offense of driving under suspension (O.R.C. 4510.11(C)(4));
  4. a third offense of driving under an OVI suspension (O.R.C. 4510.14(B)(3)(d));
  5. a third of subsequent offense w/in 5 years of driving under an FRA suspension (O.R.C. 4510.16(B)(2));
  6. a third or subsequent wrongful entrustment (O.R.C. 4511.203(C)(3));
  7. operating or permitting the operation of a vehicle in violation of an immobilization order  (O.R.C. 4502.236(B)).

By law, the law enforcement agency that arrested the defendant has the right of first refusal of the forfeited vehicle, O.R.C. 4503.234(C)(1).  The owner is further punished by O.R.C. 4503.234(D) which prohibits him or her from registering a vehicle for a period of five (5) years from the date of the forfeiture.

CHALLENGING A FORFEITURE

The court in State v. Ziepfel, 107 Ohio App.3d 646, 669 N.E.2d 299 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 1995) requires the court to hold a hearing to determine whether or not the forfeiture would be so disproportionate as to constitute an excessive fine under the Ohio and United States Constitution. The factors that the court must consider include:

  1. value of the vehicle;
  2. circumstances of the case;
  3. harm or potential harm caused;
  4. how closely related the vehicle was to the offense; and
  5. any other relevant factors to the case.
  6. If you face the loss of your vehicle, please contact Dayton DUI lawyer Charles M. Rowland II to see if you can challenge the taking.  “I’m philosophically opposed to using forfeiture as a remedy in misdemeanor driving cases,” says Rowland who has been practicing DUI law in Dayton, Ohio for over 15 years.  Contact Charles Rowland at (937) 318-1384  [318-1DUI] or visit www.DaytonDUI.com.  Rowland practices DUI law in Kettering, Miamisburg, Vandalia, Huber Heights, Clayton, New Lebanon, Springfield, Fairborn, Beavercreek, Xenia and throughout the Miami Valley.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Springfield Ohio OVI Checkpoint Canceled

January 21st, 2011
Seal of Clark County, Ohio
Image via Wikipedia

Plans for an OVI checkpoint tonight in Springfield, Clark County, Ohio have been canceled due to the inclement weather.  The cancellation was announced in today’s edition of the Springfield News Sun.  A new date for the checkpoint has not been announced.

If you need help this weekend please contact Springfield DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II at (937)318-1DUI or on the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937)776-2671.  Follow checkpoint developments in Clark County, Ohio by signing up for text alerts at www.DaytonDUI.com/blog, or you can text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.

Enhanced by Zemanta

DUI Law: Appellate Review & Motion to Suppress

January 20th, 2011

I have written extensively about the importance of filing a motion to suppress to challenge the evidence that the State can use against a defendant in a DUI case.  Counsel can use the motion to suppress as an informal discovery tool, as an informal deposition of the State’s witnesses, as a dry run of your scientific defense, or as a method of attacking the State’s witnesses.  Whatever your strategy, the goal is to win.  But what if you don’t?

A defendant has not direct appeal from a decision overruling a motion to suppress because an adverse ruling is not considered a “final appealable order.”  Traffic Rule 11 and Criminal Rule 12 set forth that an appeal of a denial of a motion to suppress can only be taken after a defendant has been found guilty and sentenced after a no contest plea or after a conviction at trial.

The lessons that we, as DUI counsel, should take away from this rule are: 1) if you have an issue which would only be evident at trial, take it to trial.  Only issues raised at the trial court can be raised on appeal; 2) if you don’t take the matter to trial, make copious use of “proffering” evidence upon which the court of appeals can base a ruling; 3) explain the options to your client before the motion and allow the client to put this into his or her risk-reward matrix.  Sometimes a client will be forced to make a decision on whether or not to pursue a trial before the motion to suppress because the act of having the motion will cause the prosecutor to take an existing deal off the table.

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland has been advising clients on DUI related matters since 1995. If you need to contact Charles Rowland, call (937)318-1DUI or 1-888-ROWLAND.

Enhanced by Zemanta