DUI case law update: State v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4258
For most of my career I have had to deal with a tremendous disadvantage in DUI cases. In 1984, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St. 3d 185, 465 N.E.2d 1303 (1984) which was interpreted to prevent an attack on the breath test machine if it attacked the “general reliability” of a breath alcohol test if it was “conducted in accordance with methods [Read the full post. . .]
When you are stopped on suspicion of DUI the question becomes – “Should I Blow?” Unfortunately, the answer is “maybe” and involves a very complicated investigation of the facts of your case and your personal history. You should NEVER refuse the test without understanding how a refusal would affect YOU. No attorney can know all of the circumstances of your arrest and your personal history, always ask to speak to an attorney when making this decision.
Can you answer “TRUE” [Read the full post. . .]
About 20% of the alcohol (actually the impairing substance is ethanol) in your beverage is absorbed in the stomach and the remaining 80% is absorbed in the small intestine. How fast it is absorbed is dependent on various factors.
- The higher the percentage in the beverage, the faster the absorption;
- Are you mixing? Carbonated beverages tend to speed up absorption;
- Hungry? Food in your stomach slows down the absorption;
When it is absorbed it looks for the water in your [Read the full post. . .]
When you drive on Ohio’s roadways you are assumed to have consented to a search of your blood, breath, plasma or urine if you are arrested pursuant to the Ohio Drunk Driving statute, R.C. 4511.19(A) or R.C. 4511.19(B). Ohio Revised Code 4511.191(A)(2) is Ohio’s Implied Consent Law. It states, in pertinent part,
[Read the full post. . .]
“Any person who operates a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley upon a highway or any public or private property used by the public for
You may think that any person who takes an OVI breath test and blows above Ohio’s .08 legal limit is guilty of OVI. This is not the case.
Ohio employs a device called the Intoxilyzer 8000. This device has many problems in its operation. In fact, after a lengthy hearing on the Intoxilyzer 8000, a judge in Marietta ruled that the machine was not reliable [Story HERE]. Prosecutors hide behind a 1984 Ohio Supreme Court decision that said because [Read the full post. . .]