Posts Tagged ‘dui’

Ohio DUI Law R.C 4511.19(A)(2) “a codified dilema”

August 27th, 2014

ohio dui law

Ohio DUI law R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) enhances the penalty for a motorist who, having been convicted once in the last six (6) years, after having been arrested, refuses to take a blood, breath or urine test.  In State v. Hoover,173 Ohio App.3d 487, 2007-Ohio-5773, the issue of whether or not a person can have a DUI sentence enhanced pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) for refusing to take a chemical test was before the Ohio Supreme Court.  The government sought to have the sentence of Corey Hoover enhanced from the ten (10) day mandatory penalty for a second time DUI offender in Ohio to twenty (20) days because he refused to take a breath test.  “The issue here is whether the state can criminalize a person’s failure to consent to a warrantless search, or in other words, to force a consent to search through the coercive power of threatened jail time. Although consent is implied by R.C. 4511.191, consent can be withdrawn. …  Imposing criminal sanctions for failure to consent goes far beyond the state’s power … to regulate the licensure of drivers. Id.

The defendant argued that “ he has a constitutional right to revoke his implied consent and that being forced by threat of punishment to submit to a chemical test violates his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution, which provide that persons, houses, and effects are protected against unreasonable search and seizure.”  Justice Lanzinger emphasized that R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) does not make refusal to take a chemical test a criminal offense. “The activity prohibited under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) is operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A person’s refusal to take a chemical test is simply an additional element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt along with the person’s previous DUI conviction to distinguish the offense from a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). Id.  The majority opinion was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor and Robert R. Cupp.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer entered a dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justice Terrence O’Donnell. Justice Pfeifer wrote that today’s majority holding diverges from previous court decisions which have upheld only the imposition of administrative penalties against DUI defendants for refusing to submit to chemical testing.

“R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) veers from the traditional administrative punishment for refusal to consent to a chemical test upon an arrest for DUI and goes down a separate path, beyond the regulation of licensing; for certain DUI arrestees, R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) criminalizes the refusal to take a chemical test. This court’s previous jurisprudence regarding sanctions for a DUI defendant’s failure to consent to chemical tests have all involved license suspensions. … This court has previously answered the question whether a person can face criminal sanctions for failure to consent to a search.  In Wilson v. Cincinnati (1976) … this court held that that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties upon a person who refuses to submit to a warrantless search.”

“The issue here is whether the state can criminalize a person’s failure to consent to a warrantless search, or in other words, to force a consent to search through the coercive power of threatened jail time. Although consent is implied by R.C. 4511.191, consent can be withdrawn. …  Imposing criminal sanctions for failure to consent goes far beyond the state’s power … to regulate the licensure of drivers. As in Wilson, the statute at issue herein imposes a codified dilemma – consent to a warrantless search or face the possibility of a criminal penalty – and thus amounts to coercion. R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) therefore violates defendants’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.”

This important DUI decision has withstood challenge, so far.  This author posits what impact the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013) regarding the State to obtain a warrant prior to a forced blood draw will have on this decision and other Ohio DUI law issues.  The “codified dilema” as Justice Pfeifer called this matter will have to be relitigated in cases where the State decides not to seek a warrant and also attempts to “enhance” the sentence.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He knows Ohio DUI law and has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  Email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

For more information on Ohio DUI law  check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Determining Probable Cause For An OVI Offense

August 25th, 2014

probable causeA warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause in order to be constitutionally valid. State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122, 67 Ohio Op.2d 140, 311 N.E.2d 16 (1974).  In order to make a finding that probable (more likely than not) cause existed the court must look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest. State v. Miller,  117 Ohio App.3d 750, 691 N.E.2d 703 (11th Dist. Court of Appeals 1997), State v. Brandenburg, 41 Ohio App.3d 109, 534 N.E.2d 906 (2nd Dist. Court of Appeals, Montgomery County 1987). “[B]ecause of the mosaic which is analyzed for a …probable cause inquiry is multi-faceted, ‘one determination is seldom useful precedent for another.’” State v. Anez, 108 Ohio Misc.2d 18, 27, 738 N.E.2d 491 (2000) citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 698, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, (1996) quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 280, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983).

In an OVI case filed pursuant to O.R.C. 4511.19, the court must consider the following in making a determination:

  1. whether at the moment of arrest;
  2. the police had sufficient information
  3. derived from a reasonably trustworthy source of the facts and circumstances
  4. sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe
  5. that the suspect was driving under the influence

These factors are set forth at State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St. 3d 421, 427, 2000-Ohio-212, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000), superseded by statute, State v. Bozcar, 2007-Ohio-1251, 113 Ohio St.3d 148, 863 N.E.2d 155 (2008) citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225 (1964); State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122, 127, 311 N.E.2d 16 (1974).  It is clear from these cases that probable cause is a high standard that the government must meet in order to prosecute an OVI offense.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

To learn more about probable cause contact me, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Judges Express Concerns Over Ignition Interlock Implementation

August 6th, 2014

2004 model of an ignition-interlock breath ana...

As Ohio is contemplating “Annie’s Law” which would require Ignition Interlock Devices for every first-time OVI offender, it is important to look at how implementation went in other states.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently released a report on Arizona’s adoption of the law. DOT HS 812 025, Ignition Interlock: An Investigation into Rural Arizona Judges’ Perceptions, Fred Cheesman, Matthew Kleiman, Cynthia G. Lee, and Kathryn Holt (May, 2014).   In 2007, Arizona became the second state in the nation to require all first-time drunk driving offenders to equip their vehicles with ignition interlock devices. The first was Arizona’s neighbor New Mexico, which implemented a one-year interlock requirement for first-time offenders in 2005.

First some context on the timing of the Arizona law.  What we find in this report is that the ignition interlock implementation was started in the middle of a downward trend.  “There is also a decreasing trend in the percent of these fatalities that were alcohol-related (BAC of .01 and higher). The trend is obvious from the first data point in 1982 to the last in 2010, when the percentage dropped from 58% to 42% respectively. The trend began well before the legislation was implemented in 2007.” Id. at 4-5.   A similar trend can also be noted for alcohol-impaired driving fatalities (i.e., fatalities wherein the driver had a BAC of .08 or higher), for which the percentage dropped from 52% in 1982 to 36% in 2010.  This provides a context for the claims of the interlock proponents who use these statistics in a deceptive way to show a causal relationship between implementation of the interlock law and the drop in fatalities. Id. at 4-5.

The report details how rural Arizona judges were given a lengthy “education” session about the law by interlock proponents prior to being asked their opinion of the law.  Despite intense indoctrination, some judges still had concerns.

“Many of the judges indicated that it is difficult for DUI offenders to have ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles. Most of the rural jurisdictions do not have a vendor that services their locality. Instead, offenders are forced to drive 50 to 150 miles, each way, to providers who are in the nearest ‘large’ town or city. The judges pointed out that this is a challenge for many rural defendants who may have cars that are operationally unreliable. The end result is that some defendants are not obtaining the interlock device and are being arrested for driving with a suspended license.” Id. at 19-20.

Other judges expressed concern about the costs associated with a first offense.

Several judges expressed their concern that the monetary expense of the sanctions make it difficult for rural defendants to comply. “We are a very poor rural county and I think the requirement is good, but there are definitely financial and logistical barriers.” Id. at 21.

The judges even found a way to voice concerns over the requirement of treatment for rural and poor defendants.

Additionally, a few of the judges pointed out that rural communities do not have sufficient DUI counseling centers or programs. This makes it very difficult for DUI offenders to comply with their treatment requirements. The end result is that warrants can be issued for those who do not attend their review hearings (where an offender is required to provide proof of counseling) and additional, costly jail time may be imposed. Id. at 21.

It seems that many of the judges were skeptical of the efficacy of the law and its implementation even after they have been required to use “blow to go” devices for over  seven years.

Despite the availability of information and extant training opportunities, several of the judges pointed to information gaps where they would like additional information about ignition interlock programs. Specifically, judges were interested in knowing more about:

  • What are the costs involved for installation and the monthly rates?
  • How do the ignition interlock devices work and function in practice?
  • What is the efficacy of the device? How easy or hard is it to tamper with the device?
  • What is the availability of local providers and how challenging is it for defendants to obtain the ignition interlock device in their jurisdiction?
  • Are ignition interlock devices effective as a deterrent? What studies are available that documents the effectiveness in reducing recidivism?
  • What are the rates of compliance? (Since the sanction is an administrative matter of the Motor Vehicle Department, judges would like to know how the ignition interlock requirements are being monitored and enforced).
  • Are there other areas where the technology could be used (e.g., underage drinking)?

The authors also did an interesting look into whether or not the law is resulting in more drunk driving cases being reduced.  Not surprisingly, “[t]here is clearly a general trend of increasing charge reductions in most counties, including rural counties.” Id. at 24-25.  Although they offer this caveat: “[t]his trend began well before the implementation of the 2007 legislation and does not appear to be related to it.”  Which raises the question is the harshness of the law causing prosecutors and judges to realize the crushing burdens placed on first time offenders.  In the conclusion section of the report the authors note: “Our analyses revealed that there has been a general and longstanding trend of increasing rates of charge reductions for convicted DUI offenders that began well before implementation of the 2007 legislation.” Id. at 28.

The authors, recognizing the trend toward reducing drunk driving charges, make the following recommendation. “Recommendation: Any state implementing legislation that changes penalties for DUI should investigate whether sentencing behavior (particularly charge reductions) changes in response to the legislation, to ensure fidelity of implementation.” Id. at 29. With regard to the implementation issues they make the following recommendation. “Recommendation: Any state considering requiring ignition interlock for all convicted DUI offenders should develop plans and contingencies well in advance of implementation of such a policy to ensure that citizens from rural jurisdictions, as well as from urban jurisdictions, have ready access to ignition interlock services.”

It is my hope that our legislators are looking at the costs of implementing and monitoring the law.  I hope that they take a step back and review how amazingly harsh the penalties are for first-time offenders and how many poor people are disproportionally impacted by these laws.  The vast majority of individuals charged with a first OVI do not come back into the system – this is good.  So why pass laws that will create more crime and not make the streets any safer?  I am holding out hope that Ohio will have men and women who will take the hard stance against MADD’s agenda.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

For more information on ignition interlock devices check these city-specific sites at the following links:
FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Huber Heights OVI Attorney Charles Rowland

July 16th, 2014

huber heights ovi attorneyHuber Heights OVI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II has represented clients in the Montgomery County Municipal Court (Eastern Division) since 1995.  He limits his practice to OVI defense and stays on the cutting edge of OVI science and the tactics necessary to defend your case.  Contact Huber Heights OVI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1384 or 888-ROWLAND.

Here is some important information about the Montgomery County Municipal Court (Eastern Division).  If you have a Huber Heights OVI charge, your case will be heard in the Montgomery County Municipal Court (Eastern Division).  Many refer to Area II as the Huber Heights Municipal Court, but the court’s jurisdiction is larger, covering regions in north-east Montgomery County including the city of Riverside, Ohio.  The Montgomery County Municipal Court, Eastern Division is located at 6111 Taylorsville Rd., Huber Heights, OH 45424-2951.  You can contact the court’s Traffic/Criminal Division at (937) 496-7231, the Civil Division at (937) 225-5824 and you can fax information to (937) 496-7236.  Pay your ticket on-line HERE, get information about jury service HERE, access important phone numbers HERE, and search public records HERE.  The judges who will hear your Huber Heights DUIcase are the honorable James D. Piergies and  James A. Hensley.

Huber Heights OVI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Huber Heights, Riverside and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Huber Heights’ choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can emailCharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

 Huber Heights OVI Attorney information and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Are You The Best OVI Attorney In Dayton?

July 10th, 2014

best ovi attorney in daytonAre you the best OVI attorney in Dayton?

Often a prospective client will ask if I am the “best OVI attorney in Dayton.”  I always answer this question by saying that I am a damn good OVI attorney, but you should investigate me to determine if I am the best attorney for you.  The most important decision you will make in your case is determining who will represent you.  Here are some things to help you find the best OVI attorney in Dayton – FOR YOU.

How Much Of Your Practice Is Dedicated To OVI Defense?  

OVI defense is a complex area of law involving forensic science, specialized knowledge and litigation techniques specific to OVI.  Successful practitioners will have access to information, arguments, experts and materials that come from being exposed to multiple OVI cases.  OVI attorneys will have blogs, websites, materials, scientific studies, and books specific to the field.  Ask your potential attorney what OVI-specific organizations he belongs to, what legal education conferences he has spoken at or attended. Ask your potential attorney to hand you his or her copy of the NHTSA Student Manual that he will use in court.  Does the attorney have one?  Is it up to date?  Thanks to the internet you can find out all you need to know by looking at other sites that the attorney is featured on.  On www.AVVO.com, attorney profiles have a breakdown of the lawyer’s practice areas that are self-reported by the attorney.  Your search for the best DUI attorney should start with a determination if the attorney does, in fact, practice in the area for which you are seeking representation.

I limit my practice to OVI defense.  100% of my time and energy is devoted to representing the accused drunk driver. 

What Are Your OVI Credentials?

Your search for the best OVI attorney should include a discussion of the attorney’s credentials. Credentials are earned through hard work and dedication to the cause of drunk driving defense.  Often, DUI attorneys receive specialized training and certification on the breath testing machines in their jurisdictions.  These certifications are invaluable in understanding how a machine could malfunction or give a falsely high reading.  Dedicated DUI counsel can also receive specialized training in the Standardized Field Sobriety Testing by becoming certified to administer and evaluate the field tests.  Having worked both sides of the DUI issue can also be an important credential.  Has the attorney ever worked as a prosecuting attorney?  Has the attorney ever prosecuted a DUI case?  Has the attorney ever lectured or written on DUI topics for journals, newspapers or bar associations?  The truth is that the internet has many directories or referral services where an attorney can be listed as a “DUI” attorney with little or no DUI experience whatsoever.  Yellow page advertisements, which often have DUI listed among many other practice areas, can also be misleading as to DUI credentials.  It is up to you to dig deeper and demand that the attorney demonstrate a depth of knowledge in DUI defense.

See the “About Me” section above to learn about my DUI credentials.  I am very proud of my credentials.  I believe myself to be amongst the most qualified and credentialed DUI attorneys in the country.  What is more, I am constantly trying to learn and improve.  You deserve nothing less.

Are You Experienced? Have You Ever Been Experience? Well, I Have

There is no substitute for experience. You should be confident in the knowledge that you have hired someone who has real experience defending DUI cases.  Ask the following and, if you don’t get straight answers, get up and leave: Have you ever tried a DUI case to a jury?  Have you ever tried a felony DUI case?  Have you ever tried a “test” case (a case where the person blew into a breath machine)?  Have you ever tried a “refusal” case (a case where the person refused to blow into a breath test machine)?  Have you ever tried a DUI case in federal court?   Have you ever argued cases involving dentures?  Have you ever argued a case involving AMBIEN sleep medication?  Have you ever represented Doctors? Dentists? Pilots? Paramedics? Athletes? Cops? Other Lawyers? Military Personnel?  How many DUI Motions to Suppress have you done?  Have you ever done a motion or trial in the court where I will appear?

I can answer “YES” to each of these questions.  In addition to my lectures and writings on DUI topics I have testified as an expert witness on evidential breath testing for the United States government.  I am also proud to be the DUI defense attorney brought in to cross-exam police cadets at the Greene County Police Academy mock trial.

Will You Be Representing Me?

If you meet with a highly qualified, experienced and credentialed DUI attorney, make sure that he or she will be the attorney representing you at each stage of the case.  If the attorney says that his firm uses a “team approach” this may  be a way of saying that you will be shuffled off to an associate once you have paid.  Another evasion is for the attorney to say, “all of our attorneys are involved in your case.”  If you hire Michael Jordan make sure you don’t get someone who attended the Michael Jordan basketball camp.  Your case is the most important case in the world to you! You are not a commodity to be managed, but a client to receive the best the attorney has to offer.  When you decide that found the best DUI attorney, make sure that he or she will be the one doing the work.

At Babb & Rowland, I am the only attorney who handles drunk driving cases.  Barring an emergency I will be at every court appearance and I will be the person providing you information at every stage of your case.

What Do Other People Think Of You?

The legal profession requires a high degree of collaboration and cooperation with others in the legal community.  Often, successful attorneys will be an active member of their local or state bar associations.  Like jury trials, serving on boards, taking on leadership positions and having valuable “real-life” experiences demonstrate that the attorney has the ability to represent your interest.  You can also see your attorney’s rankings and endorsements on www.AVVO.com.  Use this information to inform your opinion.  Also, be sure to meet with the attorney face to face.  There is nothing like sitting down and having a conversation with someone to learn about that person.  Trust your instincts!  If something about the attorney seems off-putting in his office, imagine how nervous you will be when that attorney goes into a room to talk about your life without you there.  The DUI experience is traumatic and you are very vulnerable, so consider bringing someone you trust to interview the attorney with you.

At DaytonDUI we have developed a vibrant online community at www.Facebook.com/daytondui.  Join me to get an idea about my personality and my passion for my clients.  You can also refer to the About Me section of this blog to see that I have a long history of serving the bar, serving in leadership positions and volunteering my time to help others. 

Who Do You Work With?

DUI attorneys often rely on expert witnesses in defending cases, so being the best DUI attorney will mean using the best experts. Experts can prove vital to raising defenses to chemical tests and challenging the officer’s interpretations at the scene.  Experts can include optometrists, accident reconstruction experts, psychologists, private investigators, forensic toxicologists, doctors and forensic scientists.  Experienced DUI counsel will have worked with top-of-the-line experts in court and will know how to use them to your advantage.  Another benefit of hiring experienced counsel rests in knowing when not to rely upon an expert.  Ask for names, and case references and don’t be afraid to demand an interview with the expert prior to hiring them.  Remember the attorney works for you – you don’t work for the attorney.  In my career I have been fortunate enough to work with some truly great experts.  Most often I have relied on experts in the field of forensic toxicology to challenge the evidential chemical tests and I have relied upon former law enforcement officers to challenge the officer’s observations and administration of the standardized field sobriety tests.

I regularly attend the Mastering Science in DUI Seminar through the National College for DUI Defense.  At these seminars I am able to stay on the cutting edge of DUI defense and meet the best expert witnesses in the world. 

How Do You Get Paid And What Do You Cost?

My father always said, “If you know how somebody gets paid you’ll never get ripped off.”  Here are some common-sense questions to determine what you will be charged for:

  • Will you be charged a flat fee or will you pay a retainer fee and have an open-ended bill?
  • Will your attorney be incentivized to keep the case going on longer?
  • Will your attorney be incentivized to take any plea just to end the case?
  • Will you be charged copy fees, filing fees, paralegal fees, or any other fees on top of your bill?
  • Will you be billed monthly, weekly or all at once?
  • Does the fee include the costs of a trial?
  • Does the fee include the costs of an appeal?
  • Does the fee include representation on case-related issues after the case is over (driver’s license issues)?

If the attorney won’t give straight answers to these questions be prepared to leave without hiring that attorney.  If you are shopping based on price alone, you probably won’t hire someone like me.  I am not “cheap” and I don’t want to be.  In my opinion, hiring an attorney based solely on price is as senseless as representing yourself.  Do not expect answers to fee questions over the telephone.  I cannot give you a realistic price unless I know all the information about you and your case.  It is inconceivable to me that a dedicated and ethical attorney could, or would, quote a fee without a thorough investigation of your case.  Asking for a quote over the phone is like asking the question, “what will I pay for a used car?”

So, Are You The Best OVI Attorney In Dayton? 

This entire post has been giving you ways to determine who is the best DUI attorney for you.  I hope that I have been successful in putting you in a position to decide.  Here are some more common sense points to consider. Do not hire an attorney that promises outcomes or implies that they are the only lawyer who could handle your case.  You know better!  Never hire an attorney who puts down judges, prosecutors or other attorneys.  Confidence is an essential commodity in an attorney, but all that ethical counsel can promise is their best effort at defending you.  Some lawyers, through hard work, may be in a better position to recognize issues in your DUI case.   No lawyer will win all their cases, but you can’t win issues you don’t know exist.  Hire the person who is best situated to be your guide. As the old cowboys used to say, “he’ll do to ride the river with.”  Like all relationships, you will know when it is right. Rely on your judgment and experience and trust your instincts.  You will know whether or not you have found the best DUI attorney. 

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio and protecting you.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can emailCharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

To learn more about finding the best OVI attorney in Dayton follow these links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville