Posts Tagged ‘criminal defense lawyer’

« Older Entries

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: The One Leg Stand Test

February 21st, 2012
English: The Tightrope Walker Deutsch: Die Sei...

The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) are a battery of three tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for arrest. These tests were developed as a result of research sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and conducted by the Southern California Research Institute. A formal program of training was developed and is available through NHTSA to help law enforcement officers become more skillful at detecting DWI suspects, describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective testimony in court. Formal administration and accreditation of the program is provided through the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). The three tests of the SFST are:

  • Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN),
  • Walk-and-Turn (WAT),
  • and One-Leg Stand (OLS).

These tests are administered systematically and are evaluated according to measured responses of the suspect.  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.  If the State fails to introduce testimonial or documentary evidence of the standards (most likely via the NHTSA training manual), then they have not met this burden. See Village of Gates Mills v. Mace, 2005-Ohio-2191 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County), wherein the State did not meet this burden despite the Court having its own copy of the manual.

The validity of SFST results is dependent upon practitioners following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring. NHTSA’s SFST Student Manualstates that the procedures demonstrated in the training program describe how SFSTs should be administered under ideal conditions, but that ideal conditions do not always exist in the field. Variations from ideal conditions, and deviations from the standardized procedures, might affect the evidentiary weight that should be given to test results.  Perhaps the most important statement about standardization can be found at VIII-19 which states:

IT IS NECESSARY TO EMPHASIZE THIS VALIDATION APPLIES ONLY WHEN:

  • THE TESTS ARE ADMINISTERED IN THE PRESCRIBED STANDARDIZED MANNER
  • THE STANDARDIZED CLUES ARE USED TO ASSESS THE SUSPECT’S PERFORMANCE
  • THE STANDARDIZED CRITERIA ARE EMPLOYED TO INTERPRET THAT PERFORMANCE

IF ANY ONE OF THE STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TEST ELEMENTS IS CHANGED THE VALIDITY IS COMPROMISED.

I have not added capitalization or bold to emphasize the importance of this warning.  The manual itself uses these indicia of importance at VIII-19.  Use this portion of the manual in conjunction with the State’s burden of proof (The State must demonstrate substantial compliance with the NHTSA manual by clear and convincing evidence) and you have some compelling arguments to make to the trier of fact.

THE ONE-LEG STAND TEST

In the One-Leg Stand test, the suspect is instructed to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count aloud by thousands (One thousand-one, one thousand-two, etc.) until told to put the foot down. The officer times the subject for 30 seconds. The officer looks for four indicators of impairment, including swaying while balancing, using arms to balance, hopping to maintain balance, and putting the foot down. NHTSA research indicates that 83 percent of individuals who exhibit two or more such indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.08 of greater (Stuster and Burns, 1998).  As stated above, the validity One-Leg Stand results are dependent upon law enforcement officers following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring.  The criteria to establish a proper One-Leg Stand test are set forth in the NHTSA manaual as follows:

  • Requirement of a reasonably dry, hard, level, and non-slippery surface.
  • Is the individual over 65 years of age? Did officer question whether individual was over 65 years of age?
  • Did officer ask the individual whether he or she has any back, leg or middle ear problems?
  • Did the officer check to see whether the suspect was overweight by 50 or more pounds?
  • Did the officer check to see whether individual is wearing heels more than 2” high and if so, did he give them the opportunity to remove their shoes?
  • “Please stand with your feet together and your arms down at the sides, like this.” (Demonstrate)
  • “Do not start to perform the test until I tell you to do so.”
  • “Do you understand the instructions so far? (Make sure suspect indicates understanding).”
  • “When I tell you to start, raise one leg, either leg, with the foot approximately 6 inches off the ground, keeping your raised foot parallel to the ground.” (Demonstrate one-leg stance.)
  • “You must keep both legs straight, arms at your side.”
  • “While holding that position, count out loud in the following manner: one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, until told to stop.”
  • Demonstrate a count as follows: one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, etc.
  • “Officer should not look at his foot when conducting the demonstration” – OFFICER SAFETY
  • “Keep you arms at your sides at all times and keep watching the raised foot.”
  • “Do you understand?” (Make sure the suspect indicates understanding.)
  • “Go ahead and perform the test.”
  • “Officer should always time the 30 seconds. Test should be discontinued after 30 seconds.”
  • Observe the suspect from a safe distance.
  • “If the suspect puts the foot down, give instructions to pick the foot up again and continue counting from the point at which the foot touched the ground.”
  • “If the suspect counts very slowly, terminate the test after 30 seconds.”
  • “Observe the suspect from a safe distance and remain as motionless as possible during the test so as not to interfere.”

Information obtained from www.nhtsa.gov and is considered public information provided at www.ohiopd.com

 SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

Recall the one-leg stand test’s four indicators of impairment:

  1. swaying while balancing,
  2. using arms to balance,
  3. hopping to maintain balance, and
  4. putting the foot down.

The One-leg stand test requires your body to something unnatural; maintain a rigid body structure while precariously balanced.   The most natural reaction to being on one foot is to sway to find your center of gravity while lifting your arms like a tightrope walker.   Why do humans do this?  This technique provides several advantages. It distributes mass away from the pivot point and moves the center of mass out. This reduces angular velocity because her center of mass is now swinging through a longer arc. It takes longer to sweep out the same angle because the center of mass has a longer distance to go. The result is less tipping.  Millions of years of evolution have designed complex vestibular systems and wired our brains to act this way.  Unfortunately, swaying and holding your arms out will be counted as indicators of impairment according to the government.  As any skipping child will tell you, hopping is an instinctive way to quickly correct the body when attempting to locate the center of gravity. Again law enforcement uses natrual and  instinctive behavior to allege intoxication.  As documented in other articles on this blog, overweight people, older people, arthritic people and the simply uncoordinated may have trouble immediately finding and maintaining balance under ideal and fair conditions.  However law enforcement will unfairly count putting a foot down as an indicator of impairment.  It is up to your attorney to make a compelling defense against the use of this biased and unfair test to demonstrate that you were impaired.

Not only does the one-leg stand test require y0u to behave in an unnatural way, understanding its defects requires a jury to act in a unnatural way.  For example, if you see me trip over a crack in the sidewalk, you would consider me to be clumsy or uncoordinated.  If, however, you trip over a crack in the sidewalk you are much more likely to blame the crack.  The same is true for most people. This discrepancy is called the actor–observer bias.  In social psychology, thefundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one’s own behavior—where situational factors are often taken into consideration.  This bias can be devastating in a DUI trial when jurors are asked to consider your performance on field sobriety tests.  They will view the actions with a “bias” that they do not know they have.  Furthermore, they use this error to exclude factors of vital importance to both the scientific validity of the tests and your factual innocence.  For instance, jurors may under-value situational factors such as anxiety, lack of sleep, inherent lack of coordination, passing cars, environmental factors etc.  When we look at some of the underlying assumptions of the fundamental attribution error, we see some scary stuff that we, as advocates, must point out and overcome.

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 to40404. 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. “All I do is DUI”

Related articles

No comments »

Posted in Field Tests (SFSTs)

Tags:

The Prescription Drug Defense

February 17th, 2012
Ritalin

While many people think of impaired driving as involving alcohol, we are increasingly seeing people accused of being impaired by prescription drugs.  Clients are surprised to learn that the same harsh penalties that apply to alcohol impairment also apply to prescription drug impairment.  You need an attorney who knows how to fight a drugged driving case.

Drugged driving cases involving prescription drugs present a problem for law enforcement as indicators of prescription drug use are less apparent.  The standardized field sobriety tests are crude tools for detecting alcohol and may be useless in determining prescription drug impairment.  Challenging the officer’s observations becomes the focal point of your defense.

The Ohio Revised Code also makes the job hard for police by providing an affirmative defense to prescription drug prosecutions.  It is a valid defense if a person obtained the controlled substance pursuant to a prescription issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs, and the person injected, ingested, or inhaled the controlled substance in accordance with the health professional’s directions. Id. § 4511.19(K)(1)-(2).

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. “All I do is DUI”

Related articles

No comments »

Posted in DUI, Drugs & Driving

Tags:

Ohio’s Marihuana Possession Laws

February 14th, 2012

English: Marijuana seeds. Español: Semillas de...

Marihuana is illegal in Ohio.  See O.R.C. 2925.11.  While some states have taken steps to legalize, decriminalize or actively not enforce marihuana laws, Ohio maintains criminal penalties for possession of even small amounts of pot.  The Ohio State Highway Patrol has stepped up marihuana enforcement and local police, depending on the jurisdiction, are vigilant in enforcing marihuana laws.  Unlike many other states, Ohio’s penalties are based entirely on weight.  Even a trace amount of a controlled substance may be the basis for a drug abuse conviction. State v. Teamer (1998), 82 Ohio St. 3d 490.

Possession of less than 100 grams is a minor misdemeanor which carries no possibility of jail and a maximum fine of $150.  101 grams to 200 grams of marihuana, if possessed, will result in a 4th degree misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $250 and a jail sentence of up to 30 days.  Possessing (which includes holding) over 201 to 999 grams is a fifth degree felony level offense which carries a 6 to 12 months in prison (not jail…prison) and a maximum fine of $2,500.  If caught possession 1000 to 4999 grams you face a third degree felony, a maximum $10,000 fine and anywhere from 1-5 years in prison.  Interestingly, possession 5000-19,999 is also a third degree felony carrying the same potential penalties as possession 1000-4999 grams but many judges sentence offender more harshly at this level of possession.  If a defendant is found with over 20,000 grams he or she faces a mandatory 8 years in prison and a maximum fine of $15,000.  Alleged offenders may face any one or more of the following direct penalties: Jail or prison sentence, Probation or parole, Regular or random drug testing, Fines, Community service, Court-ordered substance abuse treatment, A criminal record, License suspension and untold unexpected consequences from a humiliation, loss of employment to expulsion from school and being barred from subsidized housing.  Even minor drug cases, such as possession of a small amount of marijuana, can prevent you from getting a job, qualifying for student loans or obtaining a weapons permit.  Felony drug offenses also have potential to result in forfeiture of money or property.

2925.11 Possession of controlled substances.

(A) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use a controlled substance.

(C) Whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of one of the following:

(3) If the drug involved in the violation is marihuana or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing marihuana other than hashish, whoever violates division (A) of this section is guilty of possession of marihuana. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(3)(b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of this section, possession of marihuana is a minor misdemeanor.

(b) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds one hundred grams but is less than two hundred grams, possession of marihuana is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

Ohio also defines “possession” expansively.  See State v. Mann (1993), 93 Ohio App. 3d 301, 308-309 — “A person has constructive possession of a thing or substance when he is able to exercise dominion or control over it…Ownership of the contraband need not be established. A person may indeed control or possess property belonging to another. The Supreme Court has held that knowledge of illegal good on one’s property is sufficient to show constructive possession….Where the defendant neither owns, leases nor occupies the premises, his mere presence in an apartment in which drugs and criminal tools are found is insufficient evidence of his possession of the contraband…”  According to Ohio Revised Code § 2925, marijuana offenses require merely “knowledge” and “reasonable belief.”

A marijuana arrest and charge does not mean that you will be convicted. There are several defenses to marijuana charges that will result in a dismissal of the charges.  Drug possession charges can be challenged and beaten in court with a variety of legal strategies, including motions to suppress on grounds of illegal search, and a host of other options depending on the facts of your particular case.  If you find yourself facing a drug charge it is vital that you 1) take the charge seriously, and 2) contact a lawyer with the skill and knowledge to defend your case.  We offer free consultations and once we know the facts of your case we can give you a good indication of what type of sentence you face and what we can do to beat the case.  We are former prosecutors and skilled defenders who have built a team of former cops, forensic experts, toxicologists, and medical professionals.  We take our job seriously and we fight.

Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused 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. 

1 comment »

Posted in DUI, Drugs & Driving

Tags:

Innocent Until Proven Guilty; Does it apply in Ohio DUI Prosecutions?

February 8th, 2012

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

In America you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  ”Presumption of innocence” serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused bears no burden of proof.  This presumption is ancient, dating back to the Old Testament.  In Genesis 18:23-32, it states, “Abraham drew near, and said, “Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? What if ten are found there? The Lord said, “I will not destroy it for the ten’s sake.”  Latin legal principle provided that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).  Relying on this tradition Maimonides, a twelfth-century legal theorist looked to Exodus 23:7, “the innocent and righteous slay thou not” and argued against the use of presumptive evidence, concluding, “it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”  In the De Laudibus Legum Angliae, c. 1470, Sir John Fortescue argues that “one would much rather that twenty guilty person should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally.”  In 1678, Lord Hale says that , ”In some cases presumptive evidence goes far to prove a person guilty, though there be no express proof of the fact to be committed by him, but then it must be very warily pressed, for it is better five guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should die.” He further observes: “And thus the reasons stand on both sides, and though these seem to be stronger than the former, yet in a case of this moment it is safest to hold that in practice, which hath least doubt and danger, quod dubitas, ne faceris.”  The principle and the concomitant prosecutor’s duty was referred to in the English Common Law and the “golden thread” by Lord Sankey, who wrote in Woomington v. DPP [1935]  AC 462, “throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen – that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defense of insanity and subject to any statutory exception…”

The principle of presumed innocence was accepted in America even before we were a county.  On Ocotber 3, 1692, Increase Mather relied upon Fortescue to decry the Salem Witch Trials writing, “It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that the Innocent Person should be Condemned.” Benjamin Franklin, writing in a letter of 1785 stated it as, “it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer. The words “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” do not appear in the United States Constitution but many provisions rely upon the proposition.  The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury and the 14th Amendment.  The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. Based upon this premise, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical but deserving of, and receiving, special constitutional protection.

In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision in the case Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394, traced the presumption of innocence, past England, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, to Deuteronomy.  The Coffin case stands for the proposition that at the request of a defendant, a court must not only instruct on the prosecution’s burden of proof–that a defendant cannot be convicted unless the government has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt–but also must instruct on the presumption of innocence–by informing the jury that a defendant is presumed innocent. The Court stated, “The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”  Much later in Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 1930, 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978), the United States Supreme Court described the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence. It is not considered evidence of the defendant’s innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.  The Supreme Court has required, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.  A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.

The rights associated with the presumption of innocence have become a staple of modern democratic ideals and have been included in several important international legal codes and constitutions, including:

  • In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights states: “Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings.”
  • In the 1988 Brazilian constitution, article 5, section LVII states that “no one shall be considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable penal sentence”.
  • The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that “Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law”. It also states that “The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence” and “Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant”.
  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence. (from Wikipedia, original link HERE).
In short, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is a fundamental right recognized as one of the great gifts bestowed by democratic government on its citizens.  BUT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY DOES NOT EXIST FOR DUI DEFENDANTS! 
THE DUI EXCEPTION TO THE CONSTITUTION
If you are stopped by law enforcement and the officer believes he has probable cause to arrest you for operating a vehicle impaired you most likely going to lose your license.  You are not innocent until proven guilty, but presumed to have broken the law.  According to Ohio Revised Code4511.191, if you are arrested on suspicion that you are operating a vehicle while impaired (commonly called a DUI) and you take a chemical test which produces a result which is over the per se limit as set by the Ohio Department of Health, your license will be suspended immediately. Depending on previous offenses or refusals, you can have your license suspended for a period of 1 year to 5 years.  The presumption of innocence is so destroyed (in the DUI context) that even a NOT GUILTY finding by a jury cannot restore it.  Verdial Lewis was found not guilty of OVI in a trial in the Hamilton County Municipal Court.  Upon finding the defendant not guilty, the court terminated the (ALS)  administrative license suspension that was imposed for the driver’s refusal to submit to achemical test.  Upon appeal, the 1st District Court of Appeals held that a not guilty verdict on a charge of OVI did not permit termination of the (ALS) automatic license suspension of a motorist’s driver’s license for having refused to submit to a chemical test.  Even though the OVI charge was not a sufficient charge under Ohio law, the harshest provisions of the OVI suspension will remain in effect.  This ruling effectively prevents a not guilty trial verdict from protecting a defendant’s driver’s license when they refuse to take the test. State v. Lewis, 187 Ohio App.3d701, 2010-Ohio-2872.  If you have a commercial driver’s license an Ohio DUI charge can have devastating effects on your career.  Often clients who hold a commercial driver’s license fail to understand that Ohio’s OVI laws can affect your livelihood even if you receive a drunk driving charge while you are not operating a commercial vehicle.  If you plead guilty, or are found guilty, of an OVI (drunk driving) offense your commercial driver’s license will be taken away for one year.  If you are a second-time OVI offender, an Ohio OVI will result in an indefinite revocation of your CDL.  What is more, a court cannot give you privileges to operate a commercial vehicle while the case is pending and that a CDL suspension is in addition to any suspension that the court may impose.  If you drive for a living these penalties can be devastating for you and your family.
In Ohio, any person who operates a vehicle within the state of Ohio is said to have given his or her consent to a chemical test of their blood, breath, or urine to determine alcohol content if arrested for OVI (drunk driving).  Pursuant to recent changes in Ohio OVI law, an OVI suspect has 3 hours to comply with the request to submit to a test, and failure to do so within the 3 hour limit will be considered a “refusal.”  Recent changes allow the police to use “whatever reasonable means are necessary to ensure that the person submits to a chemical test of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.”  In State v. Allen, 2010-Ohio-1257, 13-09-25(OHCA3), the defendant  was stopped and arrested for OVI and subsequently tested over 0.08. She was given an unsworn copy of the 2255 and then the officer submitted an unsworn copy of the 2255 to the Court and the BMV. The Tiffin Municipal Court upheld the suspension. The 3rd District Court of Appeals held that the suspension was valid IMMEDIATELY upon testing over and it has nothing to do with the 2255 being sworn or not.  The Court held,
[T]o interpret the effectiveness of the ALS to be dependent on the Registrar receiving a sworn report is not only contrary to the express statutory language but would also serve to make the suspension process inefficient and impractical. If the ALS does not take effect immediately upon refusal to submit to the chemical test or upon the chemical test indicating a prohibited concentration of alcohol, then presumably a person’s driver’s license would remain effective until the Registrar processed the form.
If you ever question why an attorney would fight so hard for the accused drunk driver look no further than the decision (recently affirmed at Middleburg Hts. v. Henniger, 2006-Ohio-3715) setting forth the US Supreme Court DUI exception to the Fifth Amendment.  The United States Supreme Court has held that the admission of evidence at trial of a defendant’s refusal to take a chemical test does not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. South Dakota v. Neville (1983), 459 U.S. 553, 564-566. Following Neville, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the trier of fact may consider a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test as evidence in deciding whether the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Maumee v. Anistik (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 339, syllabus; see, also, State v. Spurlock (Dec. 15, 1995), Portage App. No. 95-P-0067.  The following language was taken from the recently decided Middleburg v. Henniger, cited above:

Ohio, like South Dakota in Neville, has adopted an implied consent statute, which is outlined in R.C. 4511.191. The consent statute spells out a bargain between drivers and the state. In exchange for the use of the roads within the state ofOhio, drivers consent to have their breath tested if a police officer has reason to believe the driver is intoxicated. Because an OVI suspect is already deemed to have consented to the breath test, “no impermissible coercion is involved when the suspect refuses to submit to take the test.” Neville, 459 U.S. at 562.

In Birkemer vs. McCarty, the UnitedStates Supreme Court concluded that there was a DUI exception to the constitution. And that, “Well, we really can’t tell you when you’re supposed to give Miranda in a DUI case. We do know that it is later than in other types of criminal investigations.” So, U.S. Supreme Court has told us we don’t know when Miranda is supposed to be given in DUI cases, but it is clearly some time later.  In 1989 the United States Supreme Court in Blanton vs. North Las Vegas, a DUI case, said, “There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a DUI case, so long as it’s not punishable by more than six months in jail.”  Furthermore, Ohio has interpreted its DUI law (at the insistence of advocacy groups such as MADD) that any test within three hours that results in a blood-alcohol reading, it shall be presumed that it was the same at the time of driving.  Even though we know absolutely, as a matter of science, fact, that that is not true.  
When you hear a DUI/OVI attorney decrying “junk science” that is used in court, they are most likely referring to the fact that the air blown into the breath test machine for purposes of testing cannot be the same air that is exchanged with the deep lung alveolar sacs. It is impossible to limit the breath test to limit itself to deep lung alveolar air. The theory breaks down because: IF THE MAJORITY OF AIR BEING MEASURED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BLOOD EXCHANGE THEN THE TEST IS NOT MEASURING THE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL IN THE BLOOD.  The machine does not and cannot discriminate in its air sample.   It will measure and analyze the 1.5 liters of breath that it is given. The problems with the theory is that the breath machine has to assume a similar lung volume amongst the population. Common sense dictates that a 21 year old, 6 foot male in perfect health blowing 7 liters of air IS DIFFERENT than an 65 year old, 5 foot 2 inch woman who may only blow 1.5 liters.  The major injustice in DUI/OVI law in Ohio is that attorneys are prevented from attacking the “junk science” of breath tests machines due to the decision in State v. Vega. As amazing as it seems, Ohio has decided that if the government says the science is good enough, then attorneys cannot challenge it. Imagine if the same philosophy were used in other areas of criminal law. What if the Ohio legislature decided that eye-witnesses were inherently reliable and an attorney could not challenge them at trial. What is to stop them from saying that police officers are inherently reliable and they too are free from cross examination.  Does this sound consistent with the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty?  Does this sound like a principle that is consistent with any other aspect of American jurisprudence?  Does this sound fundamentally fair?  A man I greatly admire, DUI defense attorney Lawrence Taylor of California, has described DUI as a political crime which is fought by extremists who have used every tactic at their disposal to overcome the fairness inherent in the American constitution.  What is worse, is that the extreme advocacy has a deleterious effect not only on our system of justice, but also on our character.  
DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Dayton and throughout the Miami Valley.  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.
Related articles

1 comment »

Posted in DUI & ALS Suspensions, DUI Court Process, DUI Penalties

Tags:

What Am I Required To Do Following An Accident?

February 6th, 2012
Português: Tetris Urbano. Trânsito na Avenida ...

The crime is referred to as Hit and Run, Leaving the Scene of and Accident, Hit/Skip or Failure to Notify.  Here is an overview of what proscriptions Ohio has adopted to punish persons involved in an accident who leave the scene.  Because of the serious nature of the offense you should seek a qualified and experienced criminal/traffic  attorney to help you combat this charge and give you advice.

Ohio law, O.R.C. 4549.02, requires any person who is involved in an accident on public roads or highways to stop and exchange information with the other party.

What information must I provide?  The statute requires that you provide your name and address.  If you are not the owner you must provide the name and address of the owner, together with the registered number of that vehicle.

To whom do I provide the information?  The statute states that you must provide the information to “any person injured in the accident or collision or to the operator, occupant, owner, or attendant of any motor vehicle damaged in the accident or collision, or to any police officer at the scene of the accident or collision.”  O.R.C. 4549.029(A).

How long must I stay? You are  required to stay at the scene until you have given your information to the other driver, any person injured, or the police officer.

What if I hit a parked car? If the accident or collision is with an unoccupied or unattended motor vehicle, “the operator who collides with the motor vehicle shall securely attach the information required to be given in this section, in writing, to a conspicuous place in or on the unoccupied or unattended motor vehicle.”

What if the other driver is unable to take my information? If the accident is sufficiently serious to render the other driver unable to record or comprehend your information, you are required to notify the nearest police authority about the accident and remain at the scene until a police officer arrives, unless you are removed from the scene by an emergency vehicle.

What are the penalties if I leave?  The answer depends on how badly the other person involved in the accident is hurt.  Simply failing to stop after an accident on public roads or highways can be charged with a misdemeanor of the first degree. This offense is punishable by a maximum of 180 days in jail and/or a fine not more than $1,000.  If the accident results in serious physical harm to a person, the alleged offender who failed to stop can be convicted of a felony of the fifth degree. This degree of offense can result in a prison sentence from six months to one year and/or fines up to $2,500.  If the accident results in the death of a person, the individual who allegedly failed to stop after the collision can be charged with a felony of the third degree. This offense is punishable by a prison sentence ranging from one to five years and/or fines not exceeding $10,000.

Any other penalties? An individual who has violated this statute will receive a class five suspension, which will result in a suspension from at least six months to three years.  Additionally, an individual who is charged with failure to stop after a collision can receive six points under Ohio’s driving point system. If anyone receives 12 or more points within a two-year period, their license and driving privileges will be suspended under a class D suspension. This may result in a suspension for up to six months.

What If the accident occurs on other than a public road or highway? You must comply with O.R.C. 4549.021 which requires an individual driving or operating a motor vehicle on any public or private property to stop after an accident or collision resulting in injury or damage to persons or property when they had knowledge of the accident or collision. They are also required to submit their information within twenty-four hours to a law enforcement officer if they were previously unable to give the information to the owner.

What are the penalties for violating R.C. 4549.021? This offense is punishable as a first degree misdemeanor or felony of the fifth or third degree depending on the injuries sustained by the other party. Additionally, the alleged offender’s driver’s license will be suspended under a class five suspension, which will result in a suspension from at least six months to three years.

What if I just damage a fence or a tree?  O.R.C. 4545.03 requires the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in property damage to real property or personal property attached to real property to take reasonable steps to locate the owner of the property and give them their information. If they are unable to locate the owner after a reasonable search, they are required to submit their information within twenty-four hours to a law enforcement officer.  Failure to do so will be punished as a first degree misdemeanor.

Contact Charles M. Rowland II today for a free consultation regarding the serious crimes of leaving the scene, hit/skip, or hit and run described above.  A former prosecutor, Charles Rowland is uniquely qualified to help you avoid the repercussions and consequences of a bad error in judgment. Charles Rowland has worked hard to become one of the most recognized attorneys practicing DUI and criminal law and has created a blog to give credible information about how best to fight your case.  Call (937) 318-1384 now, or contact Charlie on his 24/7 DUI hot-line at (937)776-2671.

Related articles

No comments »

Posted in Ohio Criminal Law, Ohio Traffic Law

Tags: