Alcohol exits the human body by being oxidized by a number of very important enzymes. Foremost among these enzymes are ADH (alcohol dehydrogenase) and ALDH (aldehyde dehydrogenase). Over 90% of the ingested alcohol is oxidized in the liver. The remaining 10% is excreted via the breath (.07%), the urine (.03%) and sweat (.01%). [Master, S., Chapter 23: [Read the full post. . .]
Ohio and the Ohio State Highway Patrol have made enforcement of DUI laws against illegal and prescription drugs a priority. Throughout the state, this means that you now face arrest if you are taking many common prescription medications. Given that upwards of 70% of Americans are taking a prescription medication, you need to know your rights.
Ohio provides an affirmative defense to an impaired driving [Read the full post. . .]
Is it a crime to refuse to take a breath test?
Ohio has adopted O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) which makes it a crime to refuse to take an evidentiary chemical test if you have a prior OVI (drunk driving) or OVUAC (juvenile/underage drunk driving) conviction any time within the last twenty (20) years. If you refuse and you have a prior within twenty (20) years then the penalties for your OVI offense will be double the mandatory minimum. (See generally the “Penalties” [Read the full post. . .]
Later this month, Charles M. Rowland II will receive certification in the latest techniques of the Drug Recognition Expert protocol now being used across the nation. Rowland will be among the first attorneys in Ohio to receive this certification which will make him uniquely suited to defend drives accused of driving while impaired by illegal or prescription drugs.
“More and more, we are seeing an increase in drug trafficking cases. The Ohio State Highway Patrol has become much more aggressive [Read the full post. . .]
DUI case law update: State v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4258
For most of my career I have had to deal with a tremendous disadvantage in DUI cases. In 1984, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St. 3d 185, 465 N.E.2d 1303 (1984) which was interpreted to prevent an attack on the breath test machine if it attacked the “general reliability” of a breath alcohol test if it was “conducted in accordance with methods [Read the full post. . .]