DUI Felony

Ohio Felony DUI Law: Aggravated Vehicular Homicide

February 13th, 2014

aggravated vehicular homicideThe most tragic cases we handle are cases involving a charge of aggravated vehicular homicide.

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)  or while driving negligently or recklessly.  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.

Under the reckless section of the 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)  has been 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.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can emailCharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

Aggravated Vehicular Homicide information and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Ohio’s Felony OVI Look-Back Rule

September 11th, 2013

felony oviOhio has established a twenty year felony OVI look-back period.

A sixth or greater OVI (drunk driving) offense within a twenty year look-back period is a fourth degree felony OVI. R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d).  Another harsh provision under Ohio OVI  law is the “once a felony, always a felony” rule contained in R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(e), meaning that any future DUI regardless of how many years have passed is charged as a third-degree felony.  This means that if you have many years of sobriety in between DUI convictions, you still face a felony rather than having your case treated as a first-in-six misdemeanor offense.

Felony OVI defense attorneys have challenged the constitutionality of these look-back provisions on the grounds that they violated due process and that they are a retroactive application of laws.  In State v. Miccap, 2006-Ohio-2854 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist, Summit County), the 9th District Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and upheld the enhanced punishments.  It stated that the penalties imposed were not enhancements punishing prior conduct, but punishing any violations that occur after enactment of the enhancement provision.  In State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199, 863 N.E.2d 1024 (2007), the court upheld the right of a defendant to challenge whether or not a prior conviction was conducted in accordance with the rule of law.  For a complete discussion of Attack on prior convictions, see Ohio Driving Under the Influence Law, Weiler & Weiler J., 2009-2010 ed., pp 333-335.

Felony OVI is different from Aggravated Vehicular Homicide, O.R.C. 2903.06,  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)  or while driving negligently or recklessly.  The statute  encompasses driving an automobile recklessly or negligently (called Vehicular homicide) whether or not alcohol played a part in the death. O.R.C. 2903.08, Aggravated Vehicular Assault is the crime of causing serious physical harm to a person while violating Ohio’s drunk driving statute.  Aggravated vehicular assault is a felony of the third degree.

Ohio DUI Laws: An Overview

August 12th, 2013

ohio dui lawsThis post collects together in one place many of the Ohio DUI Laws that arise in drunk driving cases.  

Some Ohio DUI laws are listed because law enforcement will charge these offenses to establish probable cause for pulling over your vehicle.  If you need to find out more about a specific law, or how the statute has been interpreted or applied, call Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1384 or read about the specific Ohio DUI law at the Ohio DUI Law Blog.

Operating a Vehicle Impaired (OVI); O.R.C. 4511.19

This is Ohio’s drunk driving statute (Ohio’s DUI law).  It is a complex and constantly changing statute that encompasses impaired driving by having a prohibited concentration of alcohol or drugs as well as the charge of driving impaired based on no test or a defendant’s refusal to take a chemical test.  The statue has been expanded to include both high-tier and low-tier OVI charges as well as setting the under 21 prohibited concentration.  Ohio DUI laws are complex and require the assistance of an experienced Ohio DUI attorney.

Aggravated Vehicular Homicide; O.R.C. 2903.06

Ohio DUI Laws: Aggravated Vehicular Homicide is a crime that results from the death of another caused by the defendant’soperating a vehicle while impaired (a violation of R.C. 4511.19)  or while driving negligently or recklessly.  The statute  encompasses driving an automobile recklessly or negligently (called Vehicular homicide) whether or not alcohol played a part in the death.

Aggravated Vehicular Assault; O.R.C. 2903.08

Ohio DUI Laws: Aggravated Vehicular Assault is the crime of causing serious physical harm to a person while violating Ohio’s drunk driving statute.

Operating A Vehicle After Underage Consumption (OVUAC); O.R.C. 4511.19(B)

Ohio DUI Laws: O.R.C. 4511.19(B) makes it illegal for persons under 21 years of age to drive a vehicle with a concentration of .02 percent, but less than .08 percent by weight of alcohol by whole blood or breath, or with an equivalent amount by blood serum or plasma or urine.  (1994 S.B. 82, eff. 5/4/94).

Having Physical Control of a Vehicle While Under the Influence (Physical Control); O.R.C. 4511.194

Ohio DUI Laws: The crime of “Physical Control” involves being in physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse.  This definition means that you do not have to be driving or operating the car.

Reckless Operation; O.R.C. 4511.20

Reckless operation in Ohio can constitute any number of offenses within the Ohio Revised Code dealing with operation of a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard to persons or property. It can be charged as a 3rd degree misdemeanor, a 4th degree misdemeanor or as a minor misdemeanor under Ohio law.

Boating Under the Influence (BUI); O.R.C. 1547.11

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.  The language of the statute is broad, including control of any vessel underway or shall manipulate any water skis, aquaplane, or similar device on Ohio waterways.

Driving in Marked Lanes (Marked Lanes); O.R.C. 4511.33

A marked lanes charge is often a companion charge to a DUI/OVI offense.  It is also a “cue” that the officer may look for based on his/her National Highway Transportation Safety Administration training.

Lanes of travel upon roadways of sufficient width; O.R.C. 4511.25

Going the wrong way on a designated roadway or traveling into the “other” lane may be a violation of the “Lanes of Travel” law.  Some experienced officers choose to charge this offense rather than a Marked Lanes violation or charge this in combination with a Marked Lanes violation.

Turn and Stop Signals; O.R.C. 4511.39

“No person shall turn a vehicle… or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such person has exercised due care to ascertain that the movement can be made with reasonable safety nor without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided. When required, a signal of intention to turn or move right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle… before turning.”

Underage Consumption or Possession; O.R.C. 4301.69

This statue encompasses the crime of possessing and furnishing alcohol to minors.  If you are under 21 years old, drinking alcohol is illegal in the State of Ohio.  Ohio Revised Code 4301.69(E)(1) provides that “No underage person shall knowingly order, pay for, share the cost of, attempt to purchase, possess, or consume any beer or intoxicating liquor in any public or private place. No underage person shall knowingly be under the influence of any beer or intoxicating liquor in any public place.”  As a parent, you cannot give alcohol to your teen’s friends under the age of 21, under any circumstance, even in your own home, even with their parent’s permission.

Speeding and Assured Clear Distance, Following Too Closely; O.R.C. 4511.21

The speed law is set forth at Ohio Revised Code 4511.21.  It states:(A) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.  The law goes on to set forth the “speed limits” or presumed speed limits.  According to the Ohio State Highway Patrol, there were more than 65,500 crashes statewide last year because of drivers following too closely. And of those crashes, 58 died and 18,552 were injured.

License Plate Light Not Illuminated, O.R.C. 4513.05

In Ohio, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle without a white light illuminating the rear registration plate. See O.R.C. 4513.05.  This law is often used as a pretext for a traffic stop which allows the officer to come into contact with the motorist. This is among the more “ticky-tack” reasons to pull someone over and the public views this as something of an underhanded trick used by law enforcement to justify a stop.

Driving Under SuspensionO.R.C.4510.14

Driving under an OVI suspension is a violation of Ohio Revised Code 4510.14.  It is a separate offense from a DUI/OVI charge and carries harsh mandatory penalties. With the use of “party plates” which stigmatize people convicted of DUI and their innocent family members, and the increased use of computer license plate readers, Ohioans are seeing an increase in the number of people being ticketed for driving under suspension.

Ohio DUI/OVI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

 

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville 

Wrong Way Crashes and DUI

July 17th, 2013

wrongway1A new study commissioned on behalf of the Ohio State Highway Patrol concluded that more than half of wrong-way drivers were suspected of alcohol or drug impairment.  According to the study, 60 wrong-way collisions between January 2011 and April 2013 resulted in 31 deaths.

Some notable findings in the report:

> The death rate in wrong-way collisions (37 percent) was more than 100 times higher than in all crashes on Ohio roadways (0.35 percent) during the reporting period.
> 57 percent of wrong-way drivers were men.
> Among age groups, 23 percent were from ages of 16-25, 21 percent were from 36-45 and 21 percent were over 65.
> Nearly half had no traffic convictions during the three-year period before the crash.
> When it came to male and female impaired driving, the genders were at 62 and 61 percent, respectively.

Aggravated Vehicular Homicide, O.R.C. 2903.06,  is a crime that results from the death of another caused by the defendant’soperating a vehicle while impaired (a violation of R.C. 4511.19)  or while driving negligently or recklessly.  The 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.

Under the reckless section of the 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)  has been 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.  This  is the time to hire someone who has been successful in trying aggravated vehicular homicide cases.

O.R.C. 2903.08, Aggravated Vehicular Assault is the crime of causing serious physical harm to a person while violating Ohio’s drunk driving statute.  Aggravated vehicular assault is a felony of the third degree.  Aggravated vehicular assault is a felony of the second degree if any of the following apply:

(a) At the time of the offense, the offender was driving under a suspension imposed under Chapter 4510. or any other provision of the Revised Code.

(b) The offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a violation of this section.

(c) The offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any traffic-related homicide, manslaughter, or assault offense.

(d) The offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to three or more prior violations of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance within the previous six years.

(e) The offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to three or more prior violations of division (A) of section 1547.11 of the Revised Code or of a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance within the previous six years.

(f) The offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to three or more prior violations of division (A)(3) of section 4561.15 of the Revised Code or of a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance within the previous six years.

(g) The offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to three or more prior violations of any combination of the offenses listed in division (B)(1)(d), (e), or (f) of this section.

(h) The offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a second or subsequent felony violation of division (A) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code.

If drunk driving (now called OVI; operating a vehicle while impaired)  has been 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.   If you are involved in a drunk driving accident you become a target for victims of personal or property damage.  Many times the societal approbation against drunk driving will motivate someone to seek revenge to assure that you are punished for your negligent and reckless behavior.

If you are facing a DUI charge and your case involves an accident where in people have been hurt, it is time to hire someone who has been successful in trying aggravated vehicular homicide cases.  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 our24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  Visit www.DaytonDUI.com, or get immediate help by filling out the CONTACT form on any of these pages.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI onTwitter 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@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Ohio’s First Post-McNeeley Blood Draw Case

June 28th, 2013

Ohio State Highway Patrol Mansfield Post

In State v. Hollis, 2013-Ohio-2586, the Fifth Appellate District was faced with an appeal of a decision from the Richland County Common Pleas Court. The case was the first forced blood draw decision following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v. McNeeley, which held “that in drunk-driving inves- tigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.  The decision of the court used the previous rules for exigent circumstances as set forth in Schmerber v. California and does not address or rely upon the McNeeley ruling.  Instead, the court (relying on Schmerber) finds that exigent circumstances existed justifying the blood draw. Defendant was constructively arrested at the hospital after wrecking his car and likely being under the influence. The blood draw at the hospital was reasonable and with exigent circumstances. The court credits that it would have taken “hours” to get a warrant.

Below is a brief of the issues relevant in the case, a full copy of which is linked HERE.

FACTS OF THE CASE: This case arose on September 12, 2010, a few minutes after midnight, when troopers of the Mansfield post of the Ohio State Highway Patrol were dispatched to a fatal traffic crash at the intersection of Reed Road and Route 30. Upon investigation, troopers discovered appellant had driven the pickup truck from Reed Road onto Route 30 at a high rate of speed, failed to negotiate a curve, lost control, left the roadway, overcorrected, and overturned the vehicle.  Troopers on the scene of the crash observed alcoholic beverage containers in and around the vehicle and the roadway, and detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage permeating the entire scene. The victims had already been transported by EMS, although appellant was briefly still present and spoke with a trooper who described him as “emotionally shooken up (sic).” Appellant was soon transported to MedCentral Hospital in Mansfield for treatment.

Trooper Aaron Doerfler made contact with appellant in the MedCentral emergency room. Appellant was laying on a hospital bed covered with a blanket, and the trooper did not note any apparent visible injuries. He noticed the odor of alcohol about appellant’s person and intended to read him the BMV 2255 form. Doerfler was unable to read the form, however, because appellant would not respond to his questions. Doerfler described appellant crying and wailing, conscious but unresponsive to Doerfler’s questions and statements. Doerfler said he spent several minutes attempting to communicate with appellant, who said nothing or cried and “toss[ed] his head back and forth.” Doerfler filled out the BMV 2255 but noted appellant was unable to sign because he was unresponsive. Doerfler testified that if appellant had been responsive, he would have read the 2255 form to him and asked him to submit to a blood test.

Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated vehicular homicide pursuant to R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a), a felony of the second degree; one count of aggravated vehicular homicide pursuant to R.C. 2903.06(A)(2), a felony of the third degree; two counts of aggravated vehicular assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a), felonies of the third degree; two counts of aggravated vehicular assault pursuant to R.C. 2903.08(A)(2)(b), felonies of the fourth degree; one count of O.V.I. pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(f), a misdemeanor of the first degree; one count of O.V.I pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(c), a misdemeanor of the first degree; and one count of O.V.I pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), a misdemeanor of the first degree.

ARREST AND CONSTRUCTIVE ARREST Appellant argues that the “implied consent to testing” provisions of R.C. 4511.191 are not applicable because he was not arrested. In State v. Whitt, we reiterated the principle that an arrest occurs when four elements are present: (1) an intent to arrest, (2) under real or pretended authority, (3) accompanied by actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person, and (4) which is so understood by the person arrested. 5th Dist. No. 10-CA-3, 2010-Ohio-3761at ¶ 14, citing State v. Darrah, 64 Ohio St.2d 22, 412 N.E.2d 1328 (1980).1 We also referenced our decision in State v. Kirschner, 5th Dist. No.2001 CA00107, 2001-Ohio-1915, for the proposition that “ ‘a valid arrest must precede the seizure of a bodily substance, including a blood draw, and must precede an implied consent given based upon Form 2255.’“ Id. at ¶ 18, quoting State v. Rice, 129 Ohio App.3d 91, 98, 717 N.E.2d 351 (1998).

We have also recognized, however, the reality of constructive arrest, particularly in cases such as the one sub judice in which the subject of the drunken driving investigation is hospitalized or undergoing treatment and arrest per se is not feasible. That doesn’t mean the investigation stops. In the instant case, the trial court applied the rationale of our decision in State v. Groves, which we also find to be applicable. 5th Dist. No. 10CA18, 2010-Ohio-5089. In that case, the driver was hospitalized when he was questioned by the officer and read the BMV 2255; the driver was never taken into “custody” as such because he was undergoing medical treatment and there was no time for a citation to be issued. Nevertheless, we found as follows:

Despite this court’s holding in State v. Kirschner, [5th Dist.] No.2001CA00107, 2001-Ohio-1915, the administrative regulations in the case sub judice were fulfilled. Appellant was told he was under arrest. A citation would have been issued at the hospital but for appellant’s medical emergency. To disallow the results of the blood draw because of the intervening urgent circumstances would place form over substance. The purpose of the mandatory language of the implied consent law is to inform the suspect of his various rights under 4511.191 and the administrative license provisions for non-consent. The language contained in the BMV 2250 form was sufficient to establish an “arrest.”

State v. Groves, 5th Dist. No. 10CA18, 2010-Ohio-5089,

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES: Appellant next argues appellee did not prove exigent circumstances existed which would permit his blood to be drawn absent a search warrant. We note that if there are exigent circumstances and “an officer has probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, the result of an analysis of a blood sample taken over the driver’s objection and without consent is admissible in evidence, even if no warrant had been obtained.” State v. Hoover, 123 Ohio St.3d 418, 2009–Ohio–4993, 916 N.E.2d 1056, ¶ 19, citing Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770–771, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). The issues are whether exigent circumstances existed along with probable cause to arrest appellant for OVI prior to the evidentiary blood draw, and whether a reasonable procedure was used to extract the blood. Schmerber at 770– 772; State v. Capehart, 12th Dist. No. CA2010–12–035, 2011–Ohio–2602, ¶ 10. If all of these elements are present, then appellant’s consent was unnecessary for the blood draw results to be admissible. State v. Carr, 11th Dist. No. 2012-L-001, 2013- Ohio-737, ¶ 43.

Finally, the Schmerber court also required that, provided exigent circumstances and probable cause exist, the blood must also be drawn in a reasonable manner. Here, the blood was drawn by a nurse who used gloves, used the non-alcoholic iodine swab in the trooper’s kit to clean the area, used a sterile needle from stock, and collected the sample into a grey-topped vacuum tube in the kit containing preservative and anticoagulant materials. No evidence exists this was not done using the typical, reasonable procedures used for extracting blood and, therefore, this element of Schmerber was met. See State v. Capehart, 12th Dist. No. CA2010-12-035, 2011–Ohio–2602, at ¶ 13 (“because the blood sample was drawn by trained medical personnel using medically acceptable procedures, it is clear that the method used to extract the evidence was reasonable and performed in a reasonable manner”).

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in DaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber Heights,Beavercreek, and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (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 @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook,www.facebook.com/daytondui and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.comor write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.