Posts Tagged ‘dayton ohio dui lawyer’

Bloodshot and Glassy Eyes Are Not Clues of Impairment

April 29th, 2013

Seal US DOT

In almost every DUI I have encountered, the arresting officer has indicated that the alleged drunk driver had “bloodshot” or “glassy” eyes.  We challenge the officer by pointing out that he has never seen the defendant before and has no idea whether or not the defendant was engaging in activity that would logically cause bloodshot eyes (fatigue, being in a smoky environment, etc.).  This would usually end cross-examination on this issue and the officer would be able to establish an important factor in deciding whether or not to remove the driver for standardized field sobriety testing. (Phase II of the NHTSA DUI Investigation) It turns out that NHTSA has conducted a study which could really help out.  NHTSA has discounted these clues as prejudicial and irrelevant to determining intoxication. NHTSA released a report in 1997 that removes all of these clues as indicators of impairment. The materials provide an excellent resource for cross-examination of an arresting officer. Specifically, the report states:

“Finally, some cues were eliminated because they might be indicators more of social class than of alcohol impairment. For example, officers informed us that a flushed or red face might be an indication of a high BAC in some people. However, the cue also is characteristic of agricultural, oil field, and other outside work. Similarly, bloodshot eyes, while associated with alcohol consumption, also is a trait of many shift workers and people who must work more than one job, as well as those afflicted by allergies. A disheveled appearance similarly is open to subjective interpretation. We attempted to limit the recommendation to clear and objective post-stop behaviors.” Jack Stuster, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA Final Report, The Detection of DWI at BACs Below 0.10, DOT HS-808-654 (Sept. 1997), p. E-10.

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.

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.

MADD’s Legislative Agenda Moving Forward

December 12th, 2012

CarryNationAs we have long warned in this blog, MADD and its allies in government are working hard to implement harsh measures that will test every person who gets into a car without their consent for alcohol impairment.  Yesterday,  the National Transportation Safety Board has officially urged every state to “require all convicted drunken drivers, including first-time offenders, to use devices that prevent them from starting a car’s engine if their breath tests positive for small (non-impairing) levels of alcohol.”  This would require a legislative change in Ohio OVI law which now requires such devices only for multiple offenders.

The board also urged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to speed up its research effort with automakers to develop systems that can determine a driver’s blood alcohol concentration using infrared light when the driver presses an ignition button. [DADDS system] The vehicle won’t start if the alcohol concentration is too high.  The technology, which is sometimes breath-based rather than touch-activated, is already in use in some workplace drug-testing programs.  If the technology were incorporated into all new vehicles, eventually all drivers would be alcohol-tested before driving.  That could potentially prevent an estimated 7,000 drunken-driving deaths a year, the board said.

The American Beverage Institute, which represents about 8,000 chain restaurants in the U.S., said mandatory ignition interlock devices should be reserved for “hardcore” drunken drivers and it opposes the new technology that government and industry are researching.  First-time drunk drivers with blood alcohol levels that are less than double the legal limit should be treated differently than drivers with higher alcohol levels and repeat offenders, Sarah Longwell, the institute’s managing director, said.  You can access the original article HERE or visit the Law & Sentencing Blog for an exhaustive list of articles dealing with this topic.  This is setting up to be quite a fight and, if the prohibitionists are defeated, could result in a turning of the tide against un-American, un-Constitutional and ineffective MADD tactics.

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.

Ohio OVI: Standardized Field Sobriety Tests & Marijuana

December 7th, 2012

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.

Motorcycles and DUI in Ohio

August 6th, 2012

IN HONOR OF STUGIS, HERE IS SOME INFORMATION ON MOTORCYCLES AND DUI

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has 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.”
Charles M. Rowland II has represented motorcyclists for over seventeen years.  He limits his practice to DUI defense and stays on the cutting edge of DUI forensic science and the tactics necessary to defend your case.  If you wish to contact a DUI attorney who can represent you in court, CONTACT  DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland immediately at (937) 318-1DUI [318-1384] or 1-888-ROWLAND [888-769-5263].  You can also connect at www.facebook.com/daytondui or on Twitter @DaytonDUI.  Sign up for text alerts on Dayton DUI topics at this blog or text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500 for instantaneous contact information.  ”All I do is DUI defense.”
Related articles