Posts Tagged ‘dayton ovi defense firm’

DUI in Dayton, Ohio? Your Case Will Be Heard In The Dayton Municipal Court

May 7th, 2013

DaytonSealIf you are arrested on suspicion of  drunk driving in the City of Dayton, your misdemeanor DUI case will be heard in the Dayton Municipal Court.  The Dayton Municipal Court is located at 301 West Third Street Dayton, Ohio 45402.  You can visit the Dayton Municipal Court’s website at:www.DaytonMunicipalCourt.org. Office hours for the Clerk of Court are 8:00am to 4:30pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, for the acceptance of case filings and payments. Parking, Traffic and Criminal payments can also be paid online at www.PayMyFine.org.  A full list of contact numbers is available on the Court’s website and the Clerk can be reached at (937) 333-4300.  Five full-time elected judges, selected on a nonpartisan ballot to serve for a six-year term, serve the Dayton Municipal Court.  Currently the serving judges are: The Honorable Chris Roberts, The Honorable John S. Pickrel, The Honorable Daniel Gehres, The Honorable Carl S. Henderson and The Honorable Dierdre Logan. Two full-time Magistrates who hear certain civil cases, small claims cases, eviction procedures and initial appearances for defendants summoned in for arraignment also serve the court. They also preside over traffic and criminal cases.  The jurisdiction of the Court includes everything within the boundaries of the City of Dayton. The court has jurisdiction over a violation of any ordinance of the City of Dayton; any state of Ohio statutory misdemeanor or traffic violation committed in Dayton; and jurisdiction to preside over preliminary hearings for felony cases that occur in the City of Dayton.

If you are arrested on federal property (like Wright-Patterson Air Force Base), your DUI/OVI case may be held in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The fact that the DUI will be heard in a federal court should not concern you, as Charles M. Rowland II has experience in that court handling DUI cases.  Established in 1803, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio handles over 400 criminal cases a year in 48 of Ohio’s 88 counties.  The court has an eastern division, located in Columbus and two western divisions located in Dayton and Cincinnati.  If you are arrested for a federal DUI offense in Champaign, Clark, Greene, Darke, Miami, Montgomery, Preble or Shelby counties you will appear in Dayton’s Federal Building, 200 W. Second St., Dayton, Ohio 45402.  You can contact the Court at (937)512-1400 Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.  An Ohio DUI lawyer experienced in federal dui laws and drunk driving cases can explain the difference between state and federal prosecutions, and the potential penalties of each.  If you are arrested for DUI on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, the court will apply Ohio law in adjudicating your case via the Assimilative Crimes Act.  Generally, you will face the same harsh penalties for a federal DUI as you would under Ohio DUI law.

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 Twitterupdates 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.

“LIKE” DaytonDUI on Facebook

April 9th, 2013

facebook8,000 DaytonDUI Fans Can’t Be Wrong

If you like the articles related to Ohio DUI law that you see here, please join our 8,000+ fans on Facebook.  The Dayton DUI Facebook page is a constant feed of information related to Ohio DUI law, decisions from the Ohio and United States Supreme Court, red-light cameras, checkpoints throughout Ohio, developments in civil liberties and the latest information about DaytonDUI.  I promise to work really hard to bring you relevant, funny and enlightening content on a daily basis.  Facebook also offers you a way to participate and register your opinions about Ohio’s tough DUI laws.  So please consider giving us a “LIKE” [HERE].

Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to representing the accused drunk driver in Dayton and throughout the Miami Valley.  He regularly appears in the Fairborn Municipal Court, Beavercreek Municipal Court, Clark County Municipal Court, Kettering Municipal Court, Dayton Municipal  Court, Miamisburg Municipal Court, Xenia Municipal Court, Vandalia Municipal Court, Montgomery County Municipal Court Eastern Division (Huber Heights), Montgomery County Municipal Court Western Division (New Lebanon), and in other courts throughout Ohio.

An Ohio OVI Conviction May Prevent Entry Into Canada (by DaytonDUI)

November 16th, 2012

Driving Under the Influence May Prevent Entry Into Canada

national Flag of Canada

Canada places strict limits on who may enter.  One of the most vexing restrictions is the Criminal Inadmissibility due to a DUI charge.  Shockingly, you may also be denied admission due to the conduct of a dependent who has a prior DUI offense.  Obviously, the best way to prevent a problem is to hire an aggressive DUI/OVI attorney who will fight to prevent a conviction.  Tell your Ohio OVI attorney about any Canadian travel you regularly take or may be required to take for your business.  However, if you have been previously convicted of a DUI you should contact a qualified immigration attorney who can address your issues prior to your planned trip.  HERE is a link to a firm which specializes in immigration issues (please note we have no relationship with this firm, they just provide good information).

Criminal inadmissibility can be overcome permanently by Criminal Rehabilitation or temporarily by obtaining a Temporary Resident Permit.  There are two ways to be deemed Criminally Rehabilitated.  The first is to be “Deemed Rehabilitated.”  If you have only been convicted of a single DUI/OVI offense and ten (10) years have elapsed since completion of the sentence you can be deemed rehabilitated.  Yes, you read that right…  TEN YEARS are required to rehabilitate a DUI conviction.  Please also note that the ten years starts after completion of the sentence, not ten years from the date of the offense. Canada also allows you to “Apply for Rehabilitation.”  To be eligible, a period of five (5) years from the completion of the entire sentence must have elapsed.  If you have more than one DUI offense you must “Apply for Rehabilitation” because the “Deemed Rehabilitated” status only applies to first offenders.  You can also overcome inadmissibility by applying for an receiving a Temporary Residence Permit.  You have to state with particularity why you wish to enter the country and satisfy Canadian immigration officials that you should be allowed to enter.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver  in:  FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboroHuber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville 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.

Ohio DUI Law: Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion

October 23rd, 2012

What Level of Proof Does Law Enforcement Need to Pull You From Your Car For Standardized Field Tests?

One of the major decision points in the OVI arrest process is the officer’s decision to remove a suspect from his or her car and conduct standardized field sobriety testing. The officer is trained to arrive at this “decision point” by conducting an interview and using specific “pre-exit interview techniques” which include asking for two things simultaneously; asking interrupting or distracting questions; and asking unusual questions. (NHTSA Student Manual VI-4).  Additional techniques which an officer may employ include and Alphabet test (begin with E and end with P); a Countdown test (count out loud backward starting with 68 and ending with 53); and the Finger Count test (touch the tip of the thumb in turn to the tip of each finger while simultaneously counting).  Absent evidence of intoxication adduced at this point in the investigation, the officer lacks reasonable and articulable suspicion to allow him to request you to step from the car. (NHTSA Student Manual, VI-4, VI-5, VI-6).

In State v. Evans (11th Dist 1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 56, the Court cites factors to determine if an officer has reasonable articulable suspicion of driving under the influence: (1) the time and day of the stop (Friday or Saturday night as opposed to, e.g., Tuesday morning); (2) the location of the stop (whether near establishments selling alcohol); (3) any indicia of erratic driving before the stop that may indicate a lack of coordination (speeding, weaving, unusual braking, etc.); (4) whether there is a cognizable report that the driver may be intoxicated; (5) the condition of the suspect’s eyes (bloodshot, glassy, glazed, etc.); (6) impairments of the suspect’s ability to speak (slurred speech, overly deliberate speech, etc.); (7) the odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car, or, more significantly, on the suspect’s person or breath; (8) the intensity of that odor, as described by the officer (“very strong,” “strong,” “moderate,” “slight,” etc.); (9) the suspect’s demeanor (belligerent, uncooperative, etc.); (10) any actions by the suspect after the stop that might indicate a lack of coordination (dropping keys, falling over, fumbling for a wallet, etc.); and (11) the suspect’s admission of alcohol consumption, the number of drinks had, and the amount of time in which they were consumed, if given.  Citing five factors present in this case, the Court concluded the officer did have reasonable and articulable suspicion of driving under the influence.

An Ohio OVI lawyer should be prepared to challenge the officer’s determination of reasonable and articulable suspicion.  Make sure the Ohio OVI lawyer you choose has the most recent copy of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Student Manual.  Charles M. Rowland has all such manuals and has received the same level of training in the standardized field sobriety tests as law enforcement.  He has furthered his education by being Ohio’s only Forensic Sobriety Assessment certified attorney which goes beyond the NHTSA manual to investigate the science (pseudo-science) of the tests.  If you need an attorney who has worked hard to achieve the highest level of training possible, contact Charles M. Rowland II today at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384), 1-888-ROWLAND or www.DaytonDUI.com.

Lawyer Up! Invoke Your Right To Remain Silent (by DaytonDUI)

October 9th, 2012


The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.  At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.  Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant. Harris v. N.Y., 401 U.S. 222,225 (1971).  Outside the context of detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of police at all; and if judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person still can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to comply.  Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him, can a person be compelled to answer over an asserion of this privilege. Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 462 (1972).  If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him that he has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule can be admitted against him at trial. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448-50, 455 (1966).

DUI & The 5th Amendment

We frequently encounter jurisdictions that conduct “interviews” with a suspect following an arrest.  These interviews are carefully crafted checklists that gather incriminating statements related to the elements of the crime and further attempt to limit mitigating factors which your attorney may later wish to assert.  The questions typically seek to establish that the suspect was “operating” the vehicle.  Officers will also ask what the person had to eat and drink, when, where and how much.  Medical issues, mental issues, eye health, and other questions seek to limit the suspect’s ability to later assert a defense to the clues of impairment noted by the officer.  Some interviews end with the ultimate question of the suspect’s sobriety, asking, “Do you feel you were impaired by alcohol” or similar questions that go to the ultimate issue in the case.  What is amazing is the number of people who willingly cooperate and answer damning questions.  Doubly amazing is that every single “interview” we have ever seen begins by telling the suspect of their right to remain silent.  Please, please, please assert your right to remain silent!

Your silence cannot be used against you, so lawyer up.  Politely tell the officer that you will only answer questions if your attorney is present.  We are so protective of this right that the prosecutor is not allowed to mention your invocation of the right to silence at all. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed. 2d (1976);  State v. Stephens, 24 Ohio St. 2d 76, 53 Ohio Op.2d 182, 263 N.E.2d 773 (1970).  The prosecutor cannot remark about your silence in his closing, State v. Reed, 23 Ohio App.3d 119, 491 N.E.2d 723 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 1985), nor can he use it against you even if you choose to testify at trial. State v. Stephens, 24 Ohio St. 2d 76, 53 Ohio Op.2d 182, 263 N.E.2d 773 (1970).  Your attorney will file a motion in limine prior to the trial to prevent the prosecutor from addressing your silence after questioning.  However, the protection is waived if you sign a Miranda waiver form and answer the officer’s questions.  By remaining silent you give yourself an incredibly enhanced chance of winning your case.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Dayton, Springfield, Fairborn, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro, Huber Heights, Beavercreek, Centerville, Lebanon, Troy, Franklin, Piqua 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 Facebookwww.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.  “All I Do Is DUI Defense.” 

 

Related articles