Posts Tagged ‘Chillicothe Ohio’

ChillicotheDUI.com

March 5th, 2011

Welcome to ChillicotheDUI.com.  This site was developed to provide practical information regarding Chillicothe and Ross County’s tough drunk driving law.  Here you will find information on DUI (now called OVI) law in the Chillicothe Municipal Court and in the Ross County Common Pleas Court.  If you find yourself accused of a crime contact Charles M. Rowland II.

CHILLICOTHE MUNICIPAL COURT INFORMATION

The Judges who may hear your case in the Chillicothe Municipal Court are Judge Bunch, Judge Street, Magistrates Large and/or Martin.  The Court can be reached at (740) 773-3515.  The Chillicothe law director is Toni L. Eddy.  The Law Director and her assistants are responsible for prosecuting DUI/OVI offenses in the Chillicothe Municipal Court and can be reached at (740) 774-4175, or via E-mail: lawdirector@horizonview.net

Follow these links for important information about your Chillicothe DUI charge:

Charles M. Rowland II represents clients from all of the following areas of Ross County: Adelphi, Bainbridge, Chillicothe, Clarksburg, Frankfort, Kingston, North Fork Village and South Salem.  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 Charles Rowland/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@CharlesRowland.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Chillicothe Municipal Court

December 11th, 2010
Ross County Court House

Image via Wikipedia

HAVE YOU BEEN ARRESTED FOR DUI IN ROSS COUNTY, OHIO?

If you have been arrested for OVI (drunk driving) in Ross County, your misdemeanor case will be heard in the Chillicothe Municipal Court.  The court is located  at 29 South Paint St., Chillicothe, Ohio 45601.  You can reach the court Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm at (740) 773-3515.  Here are some sites where you can find information about the court (just click) –

Charles M. Rowland II (click HERE for full bio) has represented the accused drunk driver in the Chillicothe Municipal Court and dedicates his practice exclusively to DUI law.  ”I’ve worked really hard to get credentials, so that when a client is faced with a choice they know that I’m dedicated and passionate about defending their DUI case.”  If you find yourself in need of aggressive DUI defense in the Chillicothe Municipal Court contact Ohio DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1384 [937-318-1DUI] or 1-888-769-5263 [888-ROWLAND], or 24/7 on the after-hours DUI Hotline at 937-776-2671, by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500 or by visiting www.OhioDUIdefense.com.

  • For a video of Charles M. Rowland explaining his credentials see HERE.
  • For a video Charles M. Rowland explaining the court process see HERE.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Chillicothe Will Have Anti-Speed Camera Referendum

October 22nd, 2009
The Ross County Courthouse in Chillicothe
Image via Wikipedia

Chillicothe, Ohio residents will retain the right to vote out speed cameras on November 3 thanks to a Ohio Supreme Court ruling yesterday. Fearing the public would shut down his signature program, Chillicothe Mayor Joseph Sulzer had asked the high court for an emergency injunction blocking the citizen-led initiative. Sulzer argued that this step was needed because the proposed initiative was unconstitutional and the city was denied a fair chance to argue against it before the Ross County Board of Elections (view Sulzer’s court filing). The supreme court justices unanimously rejected his complaint.

“Chillicothe failed to act with the requisite diligence in asserting its claim for extraordinary relief in mandamus and prohibition,” the court explained. “Instead, the city delayed filing its protest until 119 days after the signed initiative petition was filed with the city auditor and 56 days after the city auditor certified the initiative petition to the board of elections. Chillicothe delayed an additional 26 days after the board denied its protest and certified the initiative to the election ballot to file this action for extraordinary relief.”  In previous election cases the court has thrown out challenges for delays as brief as nine days. The justices noted that the requirement that protests be timely is more than a mere formality because absentee ballots must be printed at least thirty-five days in advance of the election date. Sulzer’s protest was filed just one day before that deadline, September 29. Hearing the merits of a challenge at such a late date would have prejudiced the other side’s ability to prepare a compelling defense.

“Chillicothe has no legitimate excuse for its prolonged periods of delay in this case,” the court concluded. “The city did not need to wait for certification of the petition to file its protest… Based on the foregoing, Chillicothe failed to exercise the diligence required of relators in election cases, and we deny the writs based on laches. By so holding, we need not address the city’s claims.”
Rebekah Valentich, head of Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE), expressed relief at the decision. CAPE volunteers gathered the required signatures to put the measure on the ballot.
“After reading the Supreme court ruling, I think that I can safely speak on behalf of every CAPE member who fought for the citizens of Chillicothe and their right to vote,” Valentich told TheNewspaper. “Victory is sweet.”

Valentich is confident the referendum will pass as voters have never approved the use of cameras in a public vote. CAPE members want to take the issue a step further and boot the city council members responsible for putting the program in place. At-large Councilman Dustin Proehl is the only incumbent who voted against cameras and, as a result, enjoys CAPE support.
The rest of the council, save for the sixth ward seat, is being challenged by opponents of automated ticketing machines. Valentich herself is running for the second ward seat. The other challengers include Beth Neal, who is running in the first ward, Dan Evans in the third ward, Larry Depew in the fourth ward, Jeremy Siberell in the fifth ward and Bruce Arnold, who is running for council president.

Source: Chillicothe v. Ross County Board of Elections (Supreme Court of Ohio, 10/21/2009)
Source: www.TheNewspaper.com (a great site!)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Chillicothe, Ohio Anti-Camera Petition Succeeds

April 30th, 2009
Main Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, 6/17/2006 Ca...

Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio

Activists in Chillicothe, Ohio obtained more than double the number of signatures required to call a vote to ban red light and speed cameras.

A third city in Ohio is poised to ban the use of photo enforcement. The Chillicothe group Citizens Against Photo Enforcement (CAPE) announced Thursday that it had submitted more than double the number of signatures required to give voters in November the choice of banning both speed cameras and red light cameras (view initiative text).

“CAPE is against the red light cameras because they are unsafe, they do not add safety to the city, they only add revenue and still to this day, we have illegal short yellows,” CAPE President Rebekah Valentich explained.

Under Ohio Code Section 4511.094, which became law on September 12, 2008, it is illegal for any camera-equipped intersection to have a yellow time duration of less than 4.0 seconds. Similar to a new Georgia law, cities must add one second of yellow time to any intersection using a camera. CAPE members caught local officials using yellows with durations under four seconds after the law had passed at intersections such as Bridge and Main. After the city increased the yellow to 4 seconds at this location, the number of citations issued dropped nearly 90 percent. According to the group, several intersections remain undertimed.

Given the strong petition support and the history of similar efforts, prospects are favorable for the referendum. A similar initiative banned cameras in Cincinnati last year. In 2006, three out of every four voters in Steubenville chose to kick out speed cameras after the devices had issued $600,000 in citations. Over the past twelve years, voters in Anchorage, Alaska; Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois have also banned cameras.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]