A motion to suppress is often the most critical phase of the OVI trial process. Procedurally, the defense attorney files a motion challenging all of the government’s evidence. Once this motion is filed the government has the burden of demonstrating the propriety of the arrest and that law enforcement substantially complied with the rules.
When a defendant challenges the admission of a breath-alcohol test, courts apply a burden shifting analysis. The state must show substantial compliance with ODH regulations, and
The Alcohol Influence Report is a document prepared by the arresting officer noting each and every indicator for alcohol impairment that they took note of in their investigation. Most of the forms require that the officer simply check the predetermined indicator. Not surprisingly, all the officer’s observations fall neatly into these predetermined areas. The report is a document of the officers opinions and should not be considered routine ministerial reports of a non-adversarial nature. Clearly, letting the jury have this [Read the full post. . .]
“The notion that an officer may testify and estimate that a person, based on his or her Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus results, will test over the statutory limit a certain percentage of the time is alarming.” This is not the opinion of an OVI defense attorney, but the opinion of the 4th District Court of Appeals in State v. Martin, 2005-Ohio-1732 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. Pickaway County 2005)(error found to be harmless in light of the other evidence [Read the full post. . .]
On any given day we’re lied to from 10 to 200 times, and the clues to detect those lie can be subtle and counter-intuitive. Pamela Meyer, author of Liespotting, shows the manners and “hotspots” used by those trained to recognize deception — and she argues honesty is a value worth preserving.
Help your attorney defend your case by creating a credible time-line of events.
R.C. 4511.19(D) sets forth a three-hour time limitation for the collection of bodily substances for alcohol and/or drug testing. This rule is a change from Ohio‘s previous law which gave the State only two hours in which to obtain a sample. The time requirement has been adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Cincinnati v. Sand, 43 Ohio St.2d 79, 330 N.E.2d 908 (1975) and [Read the full post. . .]