Posts Tagged ‘driving under influence’

Xenia Municipal Court: Driving Privileges

November 16th, 2010

www.xeniaDUI.com

Charles M. Rowland II regularly appears in the Xenia Municipal Court and has maintained www.XeniaDUI.com to educate people about the court, the court process and how to aggressively defend a DUI (now called OVI; operating a vehicle under the influence) charge.  Often, obtaining driving privileges is one of the most important parts of the defense of a drunk driving charge.  Judge Michael Murry has issued rules regarding obtaining driving privileges in the Xenia Municipal Court on the court’s web site (HERE).  You can obtain a printable version of the court’s application form below.

APPLICATION FOR DRIVING PRIVILEGES

To:           Applicants for Driving Privileges
From:      Xenia Municipal Court
Subject:  Applications for Driving Privileges
Date :      January 2, 2008


The Clerks have been instructed by Judge Michael K. Murry to reject applications for driving privileges unless the driving privileges comply with the following requirements:

1.  The request must be completely legible.

2.  The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant’s supervisor is evident on the application.

3.  If the applicant is requesting driving privileges during working hours, then an explanation of why the applicant needs to have driving privileges during the workday is necessary (i.e., deliver pizzas, make sales calls etc.)

Request must be specific, the applicant must explain where he or she needs to travel, the reason he or she needs to travel to that location, and the specific time of travel.  If the request is complicated, and especially if the request involves different travel requests for different days, then it is recommended that the applicant include a daily schedule on the back of the application. The daily schedule should include the days, hours, and destinations where the applicant would be driving should the Court grant privileges. A written explanation for the schedule should be on the front of the application.

No more than 50 hours per week and no more than 5 days per week will be granted.

Proof of insurance must be included with the application.

Any application that a Clerk believes does not comply with the above-mentioned rules will not be accepted.

Click here for a printable version.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ohio’s Ignition Interlock Law

October 7th, 2008
AMS2000 Ignition Interlock Device manufactured...

Ignition Interlock

Beginning October 1, 2008, section 4510.13(d),(e), (f), and (g) mandates the installation of ignition interlock devises as a pre-condition for driving privileges for all repeat DUI offenders. Court fines have been increased to cover costs for indigent offenders and section 2929.28 has been amended to authorize DUI offenders to pay for the installation.  According to 4510.43 and 4510.45 attempting to circumvent the devise is a crime as is failing to turn on all of the features.  Little known amongst the changes is that these statutes make it a crime to fail to report on someone who is circumventing the machine.

As for the way the system will work: Defendants will be required to familiarize themselves with the system.  They must take the car to an installation center.  They must watch a video about the system.  The “failure” on the machine is set incredibly low (.030) and the machine sets a random re-test within the next 5 to 15 minutes.  According to the information sent out by company representatives, “smoking, eating, drinking, or using mouthwash or medicines that contain alcohol immediately prior to a breath test may result in a failed test.” The machine, however, records all failures for later use by your probation officer.  Services will require the offender to schedule another appointment and (obviously) we don’t know how these will work over time.

Other objections to the interlock devices include the failure of probable cause determinations; the wholesale abandonment of innocent until proven guilty protections, the amazingly harsh requirements placed on a misdemeanor offender, the interference with a much-needed ability to drive and the limitations of the fuel cell technology.

As reported by Lawrence Taylor, MADD has been a major proponent of the interlock ignition devices.  Why?  On their list of “Corporate Donors”, six corporations are listed as “Platinum Corporate Donors” — that is, donors of $100,000 or more.  The first is a telemarketing company, DialAmerica Marketing.  Of the remaining five, three are carmakers planning IIDs in their models:  Nissan North America, Daimler Chrysler Corporation  and General Motors Companies (makers of Saab).  FOLLOW THE MONEY!  They have now locked profits into Ohio’s revised code.  See his critique of the interlock scheme at http://www.duiblog.com/2008/05/06/the-truth-about-ignition-interlock-devices/

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

MADD Pushes Ohio Toward Ignition Interlock Law

June 1st, 2008

COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 9/PRNewswire-USNewswire/– Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) testified yesterday morning before Ohio’s House Committee for Criminal Justice in support of lifesaving alcohol ignition interlocks. The Committee was considering Senate Bill 17, introduced by Senator Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland) in 2007. This bill passed the Senate and, if signed into law, would strengthen Ohio’s DUI laws. However, MADD believes there is a critical component missing — a required period of alcohol ignition interlock use for all convicted drunk drivers.)

“We applaud Senator Grendell for toughening our state’s laws, but we believe his efforts to reduce drunk driving cannot be complete without including interlocks,” said Doug Scoles, executive director of MADD Ohio. “Alcohol ignition interlocks are proven to save lives in ways that license revocation, jail time, higher insurance premiums and other preventative measures cannot.”

An alcohol ignition interlock is a breath test device linked to a vehicle’s ignition system. Interlocks are used as a condition of probation for convicted drunk drivers after their driver’s licenses have been reinstated. When a convicted drunk driver wishes to start his or her vehicle, he or she must first blow into the device, but the vehicle will not start if driver has alcohol in his or her system.

In Ohio alone, there are 147,000 people who have been convicted of driving under the influence three or more times. More 33,000 of those people have five or more DUI convictions. And research shows that people convicted of drunk driving for the first time have driven drunk more than 87 times before their first arrest.

Studies have shown alcohol ignition interlocks to be up to 90 percent effective in keeping convicted drunk drivers from recommitting the crime, as long as the interlock is installed on the vehicle. Because of their effectiveness, the devices have the potential to save up to 4,000 lives now lost in repeat drunk driving crashes annually.

“Until Ohio’s laws require ignition interlocks as a condition of license reinstatement, Ohioans will continue sharing the road with thousands of convicted drunk drivers each time they back out of their driveways,” said Scoles. “We need to do more to protect our friends, family and neighbors.”

MADD believes the tools are now at hand to eliminate drunk driving from the United States. The Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, launched in November 2006, has four elements: intensive, high-visibility law enforcement, full implementation of alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, development of advanced vehicle technologies to prevent drunk driving and grassroots support led by MADD and its 400+ affiliates, to make the elimination of drunk driving a reality.

MADD’s mission is to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking. MADD is a 501 (c) (3) charity with 2 million members and supporters nationwide. Founded in 1980, MADD has helped save more than 330,000 lives. For more information, visit www.madd.org.

CONTACT:

Doug Scoles, MADD Ohio

State Executive Director

(614) 885-6233| doug.scoles@madd.org

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]