Posts Tagged ‘beavercreek ohio ovi’

Motorcycle DUI – NHTSA Targets Motorcyclists for DUI Enforcement

June 3rd, 2013

NHTSA Devotes Time And Dollars To Study Motorcycle DUI

I liked this one

It is summer time and the perfect time to get out on the road.  If you ride a motorcycle, you may notice that law enforcement is paying you a a lot of attention. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes are 2.5 times more likely to have consumed alcohol than passenger vehicle drivers.  In 2007, the number of alcohol-impaired motorcyclists in fatal crashes increased by 10 percent while the number of alcohol-impaired drivers of passenger cars declined 6 percent.  (NHTSA defines “alcohol impaired” for vehicle operators over 21 with Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) measured over the 50-state legal limit of 0.08 grams/deciliter.)  Because of these statistics, NHTSA and law enforcement  have singled out the riding community for targeted DUI enforcement efforts.  Each year brings a more concentrated effort to detect impaired motorcyclists.

In the mid-90s, NHTSA conducted focus groups of 70 men and 15 women who admitted they drank and rode motorcycles.  Judge for yourself if NHTSA was fair in its representation of motorcyclists.  For example, one motorcyclist from Denver said a little alcohol improved his riding.  “I know that when I ride and I have a beer it feels better riding. It loosens you up – it relieves tension,” he said, “It feels more exciting riding. You enjoy your ride better if you have one beer.”  ”If you don’t fall down within the first few feet, you’re going to be okay,” said the rider from Denver, “I’ve seen guys do that. There’s something about being on a motorcycle – you focus yourself. When you get on your motorcycle and hit the road, the wind and the air just seem to go, “Boom, I’m okay now.”  Another rider from Boston concurred.  “If they’re totally wasted, then you worry about their safety,” he said, “If they’re just a little bit wasted then it’s, ‘Watch out for the cops.’”

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has also developed a guide specific to motorcycle operators.  The basis of this motorcycle guide are based on a 1993 study, The Detection of DWI Motorcyclists, DOT HS 807 839, March 1993; Jack W. Stuster, Anacapa Sciences Inc., wherein police reports were used to identify “cues” of impaired drivers.  Over 100 “cues” were narrowed down to 14.  NHTSA lables 7 of these “cues” as “excellent” predictors of impairment and 7 are considered “good” predictors of impairment.  According to NHTSA “excellent” is defined as having a greater than 50% predictive capability.  ”Good” means that the tests are 30-50% predictive (much less than a coin toss).

The “cues” that police officers look for when investigating impaired motorcycle operators are:

Excellent Cues (50% or greater probability)

  • Drifting during a turn or curve
  • Trouble with a dismount
  • Trouble with balance at a stop
  • Turning problems (unsteady, sudden corrections, late breaking, improper lean angle)
  • Inattentive to surroundings
  • Inappropriate or unusual behavior (carrying or dropping and object, urinating at roadside, disorderly conduct)
  • Weaving
Good Cues (30-49% probability)
  • Erratic movement while going straight
  • Operating without lights at night
  • Recklessness
  • Following too closely
  • Running stop light or sign
  • Evasion
  • Wrong way
The guide does not tie the cues to any correlated BAC.  Instead it simply uses the cues to say that a driver is “DWI” without defining what that means in terms of BAC or impairment.  Another glaring problem with the study is the fact that experienced police officers do not think it is valid.  At page three the guide states, “…some officers, even those with many years of experience reported they believe there are no cues that can be used to distinguish DWI from unimpaired motorcycle operation.”

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro, Huber Heights, Oakwood, Beavercreek, Centerville 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 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.

 

Dayton DUI Answers The Question, “Should I Blow?”

May 22nd, 2013

To blow or not to blow, that is the question.  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” to ALL of the following questions? If so, you can politely DECLINE any police test(s) of your blood, breath, or urine with minimum impact.  Be prepared and know your rights.

a. I am an Ohio license holder, 21 years or older; AND

b. I was not involved in an accident involving possible death or to serious injury to ANYBODY, even members of my family, pedestrians or passengers; AND

c. I do not have a commercial driver’s license (CDL); AND

d. No matter where I currently have a license to drive, I have had no prior drunk driving convictions or deferred pleas for DUI in ANY state within 6 years (from the date of conviction until now).

Refusing a chemical test can result in harsh penalties which includes a one-year license suspension, but your attorney can fight to get this reduced.  In some courts your refusal may be held strictly against you and in others you may be able to get a reduced suspension despite your refusal.  In State v. Hill, 2009-Ohio-2468, the Appellate Court upheld the right of a trial court to enhance a penalty based on a refusal to take the chemical test. In most circumstances, a refusal to take a chemical test will result in a longer hard-time suspension (30 days rather than 15 days without any driving privileges). [see the Automatic License Suspension section of this blog].  You should also engage in an honest assessment of your alcohol consumption. If you risk testing over Ohio’s “super-OVI” threshold (over a .17% BAC) you may do harm by taking the test.  Take these factors into account when making your decision to blow or not to blow.

Any criminal defense attorney would rather have less evidence against you rather than more, but giving blanket advice to refuse the chemical test is a mistake.  Be prepared to make the best decision for you.  You can also plan ahead by storing my contact information in your smart phone: (937)776-2671.

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 our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.Immediate help is available 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 on Twitter 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.

 

The Limits of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

March 11th, 2013

flikr0424

Ohio Revised Code 4511.19(D)(4)(b) sets forth the standards for admissibility of the results of field sobriety tests in OVI (drunk driving) prosecutions.  See State v. Bozcar, 113 Ohio St. 3d 148, 2007-Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 115 (2007).  In order for the tests to be admissible, the State must demonstrate:

  1. By clear and convincing evidence.
  2. The Officer administered the tests insubstantial compliance.
  3. The testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted test.
  4. Including, but not limited to, the standards set by NHTSA.

The only guidance provided for determining the meaning of “substantial compliance” has come from State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372 (2003), wherein the court indicated that errors that are clearly “de minimus” or “minor procedural deviations” are not substantial.  Thus, the State must set forth the testing standards, offer some testimony that the testing standards have been accepted and that the officer has substantially complied.

But should that be enough?  Assuming the officer testifies that all non-intoxicated people should “pass” the tests and assuming that the officer was 100% compliant with his training in administering the tests, what does the science say?  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, through its extensive research, has acknowledged that:

  • these tests lose their sensitivity if repeated;
  • sober people have difficulty with balance;
  • leg problems can affect these tests;
  • back problems can affect these tests;
  • middle ear problems can affect these tests;
  • weight can affect the tests;
  • age can affect the tests;
  • footwear can affect theses tests; and
  • weather conditions can affect the tests.

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.

OVI Trial Strategy: The Cop Was Not A Liar (by DaytonDUI)

February 27th, 2013

Most Americans trust and respect police officers.  If you think that you will be able to go into a courtroom and overcome this ingrained belief you are, most of the time, dead wrong.  Americans do not like drunk drivers.  If you think that you can win an OVI case by calling the police officer a liar, you will probably lose.  One of the biggest mistakes an attorney can make is to position your case so that the jury must choose between believing the officer’s version of events or your version of events.  Jury verdict research suggest a modified approach.

The officer is most likely just doing his job when he comes in contact with your client.  Most cases involve an officer that acts professionally.  Jurors will see this.  Instead of being combative, cross-examine the officer in such a way that you meld his story with your client’s.  Generally develop the theme that the officer took the most damning aspects of the evidence and used them against your client instead of giving him a fair chance.  An example is bloodshot or glassy eyes.  ”There are other common causes of red eyes other than alcohol, aren’t there officer?”  You could ask about whether or not the officer inquired about other causes, whether the officer asked the accused to explain and whether or not the officer has any training in determining what constitutes bloodshot/glassy/red eyes.  When you take this approach the officer’s testimony will often open a door.  You could argue that the officer made a mistake just this once.  You may also be able to argue that the officer had his mind made up that your client was drunk as soon as he made initial contact. Lawrence Taylor, a great DUI attorney from California, often begins his cross-examination  of the officer by asking, “You testified that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Is it possible you are wrong?”

Nothing substitutes for experience and preparation.  A careful and thorough reading of the discovery, a detailed examination of any video tapes that exist, a visit to the scene of the arrest and a comprehensive interview with your client will help you develop at theme that will allow the jury to see the facts in a light most favorable to your client.  The goal is not a total anhiliation of the officer, but a path to reasonable doubt.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, SpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgHuber HeightsBeavercreekCentervilleSpringboro, Franklin 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 Twitterupdates 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.

Aggravated Vehicular Homicide, O.R.C. 2903.06

February 7th, 2013

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 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.  Call Charles Rowland at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384).

If you’ve been arrested on charges of aggravated vehicular homicide, it’s essential to talk to an attorney about your case before talking to investigators. Charles Rowland has represented felony defendants in Dayton and throughout the Miami Valley.  To schedule a confidential consultation to discuss your case contact Charles Rowland at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384).  Charles Rowland, “All I Do is DUI defense.