Posts Tagged ‘dui arrest’

« Older Entries

Bloodshot and Glassy Eyes Are Not Clues of Impairment

September 15th, 2011
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.

Related articles

6 comments »

Posted in Field Tests (SFSTs)

Tags:

Nonstandardized Field Sobriety Tests

September 13th, 2011

Ohio has adopted the three-test field sobriety protocol as set forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) manual for training law enforcement officers.  The three tests adopted by NHTSA all survived scientific scrutiny as being indicative of impairment.  The tests are: (1) horizontal gaze nystagmus, a test of the subject’s eyes; (2)  walk & turn; (3) one-leg-stand.  The officer is trained to administer the tests in a standardized fashion and record “clues” of impairment as evidenced by the subject’s performance on the tests.

Often, you will encounter a circumstance where the officer employs an non-standardized field sobriety test.  These tests may include nonscientific “techniques”, some of which are described in the NHTSA manual, and can include a finger dexterity test, an alphabet test, a counting test or some other form of confusing coordination test.  Some jurisdictions still employ a thoroughly discredited test which requires the subject to tilt their head back and touch the tip of his finger to the tip of his nose.

The first step in challenging the officers decision to employ non-standardized tests is to determine why the officer is employing the tests.  Ohio has set forth eleven (11) factors that courts consider in determining whether or not the officer has established reasonable and articulable suspicion of drunk driving sufficient to request that the suspect step from the car.  See State v. Evans, citation omitted.  It is appropriate pursuant to the NHTSA manual to employ the above-described “techniques” at this phase of the officer’s investigation.  Your DUI attorney will know how to use cross examination to establish that there were omissions in the officers investigation, or that the officer lacked the legal standard necessary to ask you to step from the car.

If, however, the officer is using the tests to establish probable cause for an OVI arrest, he or she is on a faulty scientific footing.  Your DUI lawyer will challenge these tests as not probative of intoxication and that they are irrelevant for purposes of determining impairment.  At least one case, Rocky River v. Horvath, 2002 WL 538755 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2002) has decided that these non-standardized tests are improper because they have no standardized application and they have not been approved by NHTSA. [Note: this opinion was written by now-Supreme Court Justice Terrence O'Donnell].  The Second District Court of Appeals has ruled that non-standardized tests can come in under the totality of the circumstances used to reach a probable cause determination. State v. Rajehel, 2003-Ohio-3975.  The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the tests may be used as lay evidence of intoxication. Brooklyn Hts. v. Yee, 2009-Ohio-4552.

If you find yourself needing the assistance of a qualified Ohio DUI lawyer, contact Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1DUI or 1-888-ROWLAND.  Charles Rowland has taken the same NHTSA approved training as law enforcement, is Ohio’s only Forensic Sobriety Assessment certified attorney and has honed his skills as both a defense attorney and a prosecuting attorney.  Please visit www.DaytonDUI.com to find out more.

Related articles

No comments »

Posted in Field Tests (SFSTs)

Tags:

Xenia Municipal Court Driving Privileges

October 4th, 2010

If you have been charged with OVI in the Xenia Municipal Court, you can apply for driving privileges on-line HERE.  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.)

Requests 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 and 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.

Xenia OVI attorney Charles M. Rowland II regularly appears in the Xenia Municipal Court.  He served as the acting prosecutor for the Xenia Municipal Court and has been asked to appear as a “special prosecutor” on OVI cases in the Xenia Municipal Court. If you hire Charles M. Rowland II to represent your Xenia Municipal Court OVI his office will handle every aspect of getting you the maximum driving privileges allowed.  Contact Charles M.  Rowland II today at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384) or visit www.XeniaDUI.com.

No comments »

Posted in DUI & Driving Privileges, Xenia DUI Attorney

Tags:

OVI Arrest Decisions and Pre-Exit Techniques

June 18th, 2010

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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments »

Posted in DUI Case Law, Field Tests (SFSTs)

Tags:

Dayton DUI Sobriety Checkpoint Update, June 11, 2010

June 11th, 2010

NO SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS TONIGHT!

Traffic sign of alcohol
Image via Wikipedia

We have checked with our regular sources and are happy to report that there are no Sobriety Checkpoints scheduled for June 11th. We will keep you posted as we receive more information.

WHY DO YOU DO THIS? Law enforcement holds sobriety checkpoints to instill fear of arrest in the general public.  Their philosophy is that one of the major justifications for sobriety checkpoints is that the public learns law enforcement is actively rooting out drunk driving offenses.  Thus, the more the sobriety checkpoint is publicized, the better.  In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States requires the police to notify the public of upcoming checkpoints.  Ergo, publicizing these events helps deter drunk driving.

Charles Rowland believes that you have the right to know of sobriety checkpoints and that you should use this knowledge to make appropriate decisions regarding your use of alcohol.  Given the irregularities of the breath testing machines and the pseudo-scientific subjectivity of the standardized field sobriety tests you may not wish to risk driving through a sobriety checkpoint after legally and responsibly enjoying an alcoholic beverage.  Whatever your decision, please be safe and think of your fellow motorists.



Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments »

Posted in DUI Checkpoints

Tags: