DUI, Drugs & Driving

Driving Under Suspension in Ohio

December 11th, 2011
Seal of Ohio
Image via Wikipedia

Ohio’s Driving Under Suspension (DUS) law is formidable.  The statutory scheme encompasses over 20 different types of suspensions ranging from Automatic License Suspensions for DUI offenses to suspensions for failing to purchase adequate insurance coverage. Please click on the links below for specific information. If you need additional information on Ohio’s DUS law, or if you find yourself charged with Driving Under Suspension or any of the myriad offense that require contact with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, please contact Dayton traffic attorney Charles M. Rowland II at (937)318-1DUI [318-1384] today.

Types of Suspensions in Ohio

Ohio OVI: Standardized Field Sobriety Tests & Marijuana

December 1st, 2011

State v. Dixon, 2007-Ohio-5189 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Clermont County 2007).

Cannabis is another commonly used recreational...

More and more, we are seeing law enforcement officers arrest drivers on suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana.  Often, an officer will request a urine test for marijuana after a defendant has blown substantially under the per se alcohol limit on a breath test machine.  This raises questions about the proper determination of probable cause.  If, for example, no alcohol was suspected how did the officer arrive deduce enough evidence to make an arrest? Were the standardized field sobriety tests administered to detect alcohol or something else?  Can the standardized field sobriety tests use in Ohio demonstrate impairment by any other drug than alcohol?

Because Ohio does not follow the Drug Recognition Expert (D.R.E.) protocol adopted in other states, the officer is left to rely on his training and experience in investigating a suspected marijuana-impaired driver.  This means that the officer will usually attempt to testify as to the defendant’s performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test to support the probable cause for an arrest.  But is the HGN a proper test for marijuana?

In State v. Dixon, 2007-Ohio-5189 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Clermont County 2007), the court addressed the issue of standardized field sobriety tests and marijuana impairment.  Relying upon the NHTSA standards, the court concluded that observations as to performance on the walk & turn test and the one-leg stand test were indicative of impairment, thus allowing those to be used against a suspected marijuana user.  The HGN test, however, is not indicative of marijuana impairment.  According to NHTSA nystagmus would not be present due to marijuana and, as such, it was plain error to admit evidence of the HGN against the defendant.

Dayton DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver.  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.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

DUI Checkpoints: Are They Justified (Still)?

November 4th, 2011
Official portrait of Justice William J. Brenna...

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Sobriety Checkpoints, Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

In 1986, the Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation. Before the first roadblock went into effect, Rick Sitz, a licensed Michigan driver, challenged the checkpoints and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Sitz was victorious in the Michigan lower courts.  In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment.  Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion and stated, “no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States’ interest in eradicating it….The weight bearing on the other scale—the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints—is slight.”  Justice Rehnquist further justified his opinion by claiming that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints as a deterrent to drunk driving, thereby making the checkpoints necessary and effective.  Note that the majority decided that a deterrent effect is enough of a justification even if there is no evidence that the checkpoints are, in fact, effective.  Justice Rehnquist was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, O’Connor, Blackmun and White.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out that a review by the Michigan trial court on sobriety checkpoints statistics, “based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative.”  In his dissenting opinion, Justice William Brennan, concluded “the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative…That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion. The most disturbing aspect of the Court’s decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures.”

Twenty-one years later, DUI checkpoints have become a staple of local law enforcement efforts to curb drunk driving.  Despite scant evidence that DUI checkpoints work, M.A.D.D. continues to support these efforts arguing that the continued burden on civil rights is justified despite the dramatic and consistent decline of drunk driving and the successful stigmatization of the crime in society.  Perhaps they are misguided due to the copious amounts of money funneled to local law enforcement agencies.  States get grant money from the federal government to promote responsible driving. Whether the public is benefiting from the investment is debatable but the monetary benefit to law enforcement is not.  Additionally, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) guidelines say DUI checkpoints could be efficiently staffed with six officers, but often DUI checkpoints employ multiple jurisdictions and far more than six (6) officers.  It is estimated those additional officers at a DUI checkpoint cost state and federal taxpayers $5.5 million in 2008-2009.

Some argue that DUI checkpoints are just an annoyance. The police, however, have taken the idea of looking for signs of inebriation far further, using checkpoints to make far more arrests for seatbelt violations, warrant arrests, driving under suspension and other offenses besides drunk driving.  The officers take full advantage of  looking inside your car and according the U.S. Supreme Court in Illinois v. Caballes,  law enforcement has the right to use dog-sniffing drugs to look for drugs.  You are being subjected to a very intrusive search on no legal grounds whatsoever because there are no “articulable facts” as required by the Fourth Amendment.  We have also seen the expansion of checkpoints for purposes beyond drunk driving.  Some states use checkpoints to enforce immigration policy, seatbelt laws or simply to check your papers.  Checkpoints have become a slippery civil rights slope because stopping drunk drivers has become secondary to filling city coffers via ticket, towing, and car impound fees at the expense of guaranteed Constitutional protections. Just how far that slope erodes our civil rights remains to be seen.

Dayton DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II has long been an opponent of the unjustified intrusion into your liberty caused by a reliance on OVI checkpoints.  If you find yourself in need of a passionate defender of your rights, contact Charles M. Rowland II at (937)318-1DUI [318-1384] or 1-888-ROWLAND [1-888-769-5263].  You can also follow him at www.facebook.com/daytondui or on Twitter @DaytonDUI.  ”All I do is DUI defense.”

Morphine, Heroin and the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus

September 26th, 2011
Advertisement for curing morphine addictions f...

In the past years, my office has seen an increase in the number of “drugged” driving cases we receive. While arrests for marijuana make up the vast majority of those cases, we are also seeing a dramatic rise in prescription drug cases along with traffic stops implicating harder drugs such morphine and heroin.

As with other impaired driving cases, it is vital that you know the observations that would be consistent with impairment by that drug.  It is also vital that you determine if the “standardized field sobriety test” protocol adopted in Ohio is applicable in recognizing clues of impairment due to that specific drug.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter NHTSA) has been at the forefront in research to this very point.  The information in this article is derived from the NHTSA Drug and Human Performance Fact Sheet.

Heroin and Morphine are both classified as narcotic analgesics.  Morphine is a naturally occurring substance extracted from the seedpod of the poppy plant, Papavar somniferum. The milky resin that seeps from incisions made in the unripe seedpod is dried and powdered to make opium, which contains a number of alkaloids including morphine. Morphine concentration in opium can range from 4-21%. An alternate method of harvesting morphine is by the industrial poppy straw process of extracting alkaloids from the mature dried plant, which produces a fine brownish powder. Morphine is a schedule II controlled substance and is available in a variety of prescription forms: injectables (0.5-25 mg/mL strength); oral solutions (2-20 mg/mL); immediate and controlled release tablets and capsules (15-200 mg); and suppositories (5-30 mg). Heroin is a schedule I controlled substance and is produced from morphine by acetylation at the 3 and 6 positions. The majority of heroin sold in the U. S. originates from Southeast Asia, South America (Columbia) and Mexico. Low purity Mexican black tar heroin is most common on the West coast, while high purity Columbian heroin dominates in the East and most mid-western states.

Depending on the morphine dose and the route of administration, onset of effects is within 15-60 minutes and effects may last 4-6 hours. The duration of analgesia increases progressively with age although the degree of analgesia remains unchanged. Following heroin use, the intense euphoria lasts from 45 seconds to several minutes, peak effects last 1-2 hours, and the overall effects wear off in 3-5 hours, depending on dose.

The drug manufacturer states that morphine may impair the mental and/or physical abilities needed to perform potentially hazardous activities such as driving a car, and patients must be cautioned accordingly. Driving ability in cancer patients receiving long-term morphine analgesia (mean 209 mg daily) was considered not to be impaired by the sedative effects of morphine to an extent that accidents might occur. There were no significant differences between the morphine treated cancer patients and a control group in vigilance, concentration, motor reactions, or divided attention. A small but significant slowing of reaction time was observed at 3 hours. In several driving under the influence case reports, where the subjects tested positive for morphine and/or 6-acetylmorphine, observations included slow driving, weaving, poor vehicle control, poor coordination, slow response to stimuli, delayed reactions, difficultly in following instructions, and falling asleep at the wheel.  Classification of risk depends on tolerance, dose, time of exposure, acute or chronic use, presence or absence of underlying pain, physiological status of individual, and the presence of other drugs: moderately to severely impairing in non-tolerant individuals; mild to moderately impairing if morphine is used as medication on a regular basis for chronic pain; severely impairing in acute situations if used orally, or as an intravenous medication, or if either drug is taken illicitly.

With regard to the standardized field sobriety tests, law enforcement will be required to rely on the coordination tests rather than the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  Horizontal gaze nystagmus is not present; vertical gaze nystagmus is not present; lack of convergence is not present; pupil size is constricted; little or no reaction to light; pulse rate down; blood pressure down; body temperature down. Other characteristic indicators may include presence of fresh injection marks, track marks, flaccid muscle tone, droopy eyelids, drowsiness or “on-the-nod”, and low raspy slow speech.

Charles M. Rowland II has dedicated his practice to representing the accused drunk driver.  His commitment includes continuous study of the forensic sciences and legal strategies that will help you win your DUI case.  If you find yourself in need of a qualified and experienced Ohio OVI attorney, CONTACT Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1DUI or 1-888-ROWLAND.

Illegal Bath Salts, A Primer

September 7th, 2011

Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) (“bath salts”, “Ivory Wave”, “plant fertilizer”, “plant food”,“Vanilla Sky”, “Energy-1”)

Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) is a designer drug of the phenethylamine class. MDPV is structurally related to cathinone, an active alkaloid found in the khat plant, methamphetamine, and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). MDPV is a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant and it was first seized in Germany in 2007. The abuse of MDPV is increasing, particularly in Europe and Australia. MDPV has been identified in products called “bath salts” which are sold on websites based in Europe.  MDPV is not approved for medical use in the United States.

MDPV (1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)- 1-pentanone; Chemical Abstract Service Number 687603- 66-3) is related in chemical structure to schedule I hallucinogenic substances (MDMA, MDEA) and to schedule I stimulants (cathinone, methcathinone). Its molecular formula is C16H21NO3 and its molecular weight is 275 g/mol. MDPV has a high melting point (estimated at 200oC) and is a solid at room temperature. MDPV is structurally related to MDMA and also to cathinone, with a ring-bearing substituent group. Cathinone derivatives, which bear ring-group substituents, have been reported to induce subjective effects similar to those induced by cocaine, amphetamine, and MDMA in humans. The subjective effects induced by ring-group substituted cathinones are feelings of empathy, stimulation, alertness, euphoria, and awareness of senses.  It has been demonstrated that MDPV administered to mice increased the extracellular levels of dopamine levels 60 min after administration of MDPV. Though MDPV increased dopamine levels, the effect was not as marked as the increases induced by methamphetamine or MDMA. (March 2011 DEA/OD/ODE)

Users of MDPV anecdotally report that they take 5 mg or less per session and there have been reports of cravings for MDPV by users. The acute side effects of MDPV include tachycardia, hypertension, vasoconstriction, and sweating. The duration of the subjective effects is about 3 to 4 hours and the side effects continuing a total of 6 to 8 hours after administration. Higher doses of MDPV have caused intense, prolonged panic attacks in stimulant-intolerant users. Users have reported bouts of psychosis induced by sleep deprivation and becoming addicted after using higher doses or using at more frequent dosing intervals. MDPV loses potency when it is put into solution.  MDPV has been identified in a seized product called “Ivory Wave”. It is sold as a “bath salt” with the label indicating “for novelty use only” without any instructions for dosage. “Ivory Wave” is sold in 500 mg packets on Internet sites based in Europe. MDPV has also been identified in a product called “Energy 1”, which is sold on United Kingdom- based websites.  User population information in the U.S. is very limited. There have been reports of MDVP being used predominantly by the youth population. MDPV data are not reported by any national drug study programs.

Currently, MDPV is not a scheduled drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Information in this post is taken from information provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion. Orginal link here: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/mdpv.pdf

Dayton DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’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.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@CharlesRowland.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.