Posts Tagged ‘fairborn dui’

Snow: What is the Law in Ohio? (by DaytonDUI)

December 9th, 2013

English: Trees covered by snow in Boreal, Cali...

With the return of winter weather, we have received some questions about what constitutes a snow emergency and under what authority a snow emergency can be deemed to exist.  We have also counseled clients who wanted to know what law would circumscribe their behavior during a snow event.  Here is what we learned:

A county sheriff may, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code sections 311.07 and 311.08, declare a snow emergency and temporarily close the state roads and municipal streets within his/her jurisdiction when such action is reasonably necessary for the preservation of the public peace. Ohio Attorney General’s Opinion 97-015, issued April 1, 1997, concluded that this authority includes state roads, county and township roads and municipal streets.

Ohio law provides for three levels of snow emergency.

Snow Emergency Classifications

LEVEL 1: Roadways are hazardous with blowing and drifting snow. Roads may also be icy. Motorists are urged to drive very cautiously.

LEVEL 2: Roadways are hazardous with blowing and drifting snow. Roads may also be very icy. Only those who feel it is necessary to drive should be out on the roads. Contact your employer to see if you should report to work. Motorists should use extreme caution.

LEVEL 3: All roadways are closed to non-emergency personnel. No one should be driving during these conditions unless it is absolutely necessary to travel or a personal emergency exists. All employees should contact their employer to see if they should report to work. Those traveling on the roads may subject themselves to arrest.

Ohio Revised Code 2917.13 sets forth the crime of “Misconduct at an Emergency.”  Any person who knowingly hampers or fails to obey a lawful order of the sheriff declaring a snow emergency and temporarily closing highways, roads and/or streets within his/her jurisdiction may be subject to criminal prosecution under Ohio Revised Code Section 2917.13, “Misconduct at an emergency” or other applicable law or ordinance. A violation under that section is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, punishable by a jail sentence not to exceed 30 days and/or a fine not to exceed $250. If the misconduct creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a jail sentence not to exceed 180 days and/or a fine not to exceed $1,000.  Below is the full text of the statute.

ORC 2917.13. Misconduct at emergency.

(A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

  • 1. Hamper the lawful operations of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person, engaged in the person’s duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot or emergency of any kind;
  • 2. Hamper the lawful activities of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person’s duties in an emergency facility;
  • 3. Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer’s duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster or emergency of any kind.

(B) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit access or deny information to any news media representative in the lawful exercise of the news media representative’s duties.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of misconduct at an emergency. Except as otherwise provided in this division, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(D) As used in this section:

  • 1. “Emergency medical services person” is the singular of “emergency medical services personnel” as defined in section 2133.21 of the Revised Code.
  • 2. “Emergency facility person” is the singular of “emergency facility personnel” as defined in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.
  • 3. “Emergency facility” has the same meaning as in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 03-22-2004

To view the state’s weather-related road closures and restrictions, visit the Ohio Department of Transportation’s traffic Web site at www.buckeyetraffic.org.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro, Huber Heights, Oakwood, Beavercreek, Centerville and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324. “All I do is DUI”

Babb & Rowland, Fairborn’s DUI Law Firm

October 1st, 2013
DUI Law FirmWe are proud to be Fairborn’s DUI Law Firm!

Babb & Rowland, Fairborn’s DUI Law Firm, is proudly located in Fairborn, Ohio at 2190 Dayton-Yellow Springs Dr.  You can find us at Exit 20 (the Fairborn High School Exit) just off I-675.  You can find us on the web at www.FairbornDUI.com or www.FairbornOVI.com.  Charles M. Rowland II has regularly appeared in the Fairborn Municipal Court representing the accused drunk driver since 1995.  We can lay claim to the title “Fairborn’s DUI Law Firm” because we are the only firm with an attorney dedicated exclusively to DUI Defense.

The Fairborn Municipal Court is located at 1148 Kaufmann Ave, Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  The telephone number for the court is (937) 754-3040, Fax (937) 879-4422.  The normal business hours for the court are 7:30 a.m. for 4:00 p.m.  The jurisdiction of the court includes BeavercreekBeavercreek TownshipFairborn and Bath Township. If you are looking for a case in the Fairborn/Beavercreek Municipal Court visit the Court’s web site here: http://ci.fairborn.oh.us/court.htm.  The Court also posts a list of its common fees on their site.  The Judge of the Fairborn/Beavercreek Municipal Court is the honorable Beth Root who was elected in 2007 to a six year term.

Fairborn OVI 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 emailCharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

 Fairborn’s DUI Law firm offers city-specific DUI information at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville 

OVI In The Fairborn Municipal Court

September 3rd, 2013

Fairborn Municipal CourtInformation about OVI cases in the Fairborn Municipal Court

If you are charged with an OVI in Fairborn, your misdemeanor OVI case will be heard in the Beavercreek/Fairborn Municipal Court.  The Fairborn Municipal Court, located at at 1148 Kauffman Ave., Fairborn, Ohio 45324, maintains a copy of its fee schedule on its web site. The Fairborn Municipal Court serves Fairborn, Bath TownshipBeavercreek and Beavercreek Township. The court conducts preliminary hearings in felony cases, handles traffic and non-traffic misdemeanors, and civil cases where the money in dispute does not exceed $15,000. The Greene County Common Pleas Court (in Xenia) handles felony criminal cases.  You can contact the Fairborn Municipal Court at; (937) 754-3040 or by fax at  (937) 879-4422.  The presiding Judge of the Fairborn Municipal Court is Beth W. Root who became judge of the Fairborn/Beavercreek Municipal Court in January 2008.

Fairborn OVI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Fairborn Municipal Court 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.”

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville 

DUI Attorney in Fairborn, Ohio

July 9th, 2013

We are proud residents of Fairborn, Ohio.  Since 1995, I have represented client’s accused of DUI (now OVI) in the Fairborn Municipal Court.  I have been practicing DUI law from our building in Fairborn, Ohio since I moved from Xenia in 2005.  As of 2013 we made our home permanent by buying our current building in the Valle Greene section of Fairborn.  You can find us at exit 20, just off I-675 (the Dayton-Yellow Springs exit).  Turn right and look for Gateway Dr.  We are the last office building on the left across the street from one of Greene County’s hidden gems, The Michael’s House.  In addition to the resources provided here, you can visit www.FairbornDUI.com or www.FairbornOVI.com.

Do you have a DUI case in FairbornBathTownshipBeavercreek or Beavercreek Township, your misdemeanor OVI case will be heard in the Beavercreek/Fairborn Municipal Court, 1148 Kauffman Ave. in Fairborn, Ohio.  If you need to find information about a case in the Fairborn Municipal Court you can search HERE for case information or visit the court’s web site HERE.  Charles M. Rowland II, a life-long resident of Greene County,  has represented the accused drunk driver in the Fairborn Municipal Court  since 1995.  Charles Rowland dedicates his practice to OVI law and has some of the most impressive credentials for OVI attorneys in the state of Ohio.  If you find yourself in need of criminal representation in the Fairborn Municipal Court, contact Fairborn DUI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II today!  You can reach Charles Rowland at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384), 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263), or 24/7 on the after-hours DUI Hotline at 937-776-2671, by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500 or by visiting www.FairbornDUI.com, orwww.BeavercreekDUI.com.

What Is Wrong With The HGN? (by DaytonDUI)

June 13th, 2013

My eye

The horizontal gaze nystagmus test is an eye test approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(hereinafter NHTSA) as a tool to detect clues of impairment in drivers.  The HGNtest is one of three psychomotor tests approved as part of the standardized field sobriety testing protocol employed by law enforcement officers throughout the United States and used here in Ohio.

When an officer asks you to follow his pen, he is performing the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  Nystagmus is defined as the oscillation of the eyeball that occurs when there is a disturbance of the vestibular system or the oculomotor control of the eye.  The nystagmus the officer is looking for is an involuntary motion.  A person is usually unaware of the presence of a nystagmus and cannot control it. Forkiotis, C.J. Optometric Exercise: The Scientific Basis for Alcohol Gaze Nystagmus. 59 Curriculum II, No. 7 at 9 (April 1987); Good, Gregory W.  & Augsburger, Arol R. Use of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus as a Part of Roadside Sobriety Testing. 63 Am. J. of Optometry & Physiological Optics 467, 469 (1986); Stapleton, June M. et al. Effects of Alcohol and Other Psychotropic Drugs on Eye Movements: Relevance to Traffic Safety. 47 Q.J. Stud. on Alcohol 426, 430 (1986).  The officer is looking for a type of nystagmus wherein the eye moves slowly in one direction and then returns rapidly, sometimes referred to as a jerk or jerking nystagmus. Adams, Raymond D. & Victor, Maurice. Disorders of Ocular Movement and Pupillary Function.  Principles of Neurology.  Ch.13, 117 (4th ed. 1991).

A major weakness in relying on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test in the criminal justice arena is that there are multiple causes of nystagmus that have been observed.  Syndromes such as influenza, vertigo, epilepsy, measles, syphilis, arteriosclerosis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Korsakoff’s Syndrome, brain hemorrhage, streptococcus infections, and other psychogenic disorders all have been shown to produce nystagmus. Additionally, conditions such as hypertension, motion sickness, sunstroke, eyestrain, eye muscle fatigue, glaucoma, and changes in atmospheric pressure may result in gaze nystagmus. Pangman. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: Voodoo Science. 2 DWI J. 1, 3-4 (1987).  Caffeine, nicotine and aspirin (alone or in combination with alcohol) can also lead to a nystagmus which mimics a nystagmus attributable to alcohol consumption. Id. at 3-4.  Scientific literature also points to a person’s circadian rhythms or biorhythms as having an affect on nystagmus readings as the body reacts differently to alcohol at different times in the day and even fatigue nystagmus can be found in an individual, and the list, according to critics, goes on.   Id. at 3-4; Booker, J.L.  End-position nystagmus as an indicator of ethanol intoxication. Sci Justice.  41(2):113-116. (April – June, 2001).

The horizontal gaze nystagmus test is not present in marijuana impairment cases. In State v. Dixon, 2007-Ohio-5189 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Clermont County 2007), the court addressed the issue of standardized field sobriety tests and marijuana impairment.  Relying upon the NHTSA standards, the court concluded that observations as to performance on the walk & turn test and the one-leg stand test were indicative of impairment, thus allowing those to be used against a suspected marijuana user.  The HGN test, however, is not indicative of marijuana impairment.  According to NHTSA nystagmus would not be present due to marijuana and, as such, it was plain error to admit evidence of the HGN against the defendant accused of marijuana impairment.

Ohio Revised Code 4511.19(D)(4)(b) sets forth the standards for admissibility of the results of field sobriety tests in OVI (drunk driving) prosecutions.  See State v. Bozcar, 113 Ohio St. 3d 148, 2007-Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 115 (2007).  In order for the tests to be admissible, the State must demonstrate:

  1. By clear and convincing evidence.
  2. The Officer administered the tests insubstantial compliance.
  3. The testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted test.
  4. Including, but not limited to, the standards set by NHTSA.

The only guidance provided for determining the meaning of “substantial compliance” has come from State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372 (2003), wherein the court indicated that errors that are clearly “de minimus” or “minor procedural deviations” are not substantial.  Thus, the State must set forth the testing standards, offer some testimony that the testing standards have been accepted and that the officer has substantially complied.  If the State fails to introduce testimonial or documentary evidence of the standards (most likely via the NHTSA training manual), then they have not met this burden. See Village of Gates Mills v. Mace, 2005-Ohio-2191 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County), wherein the State did not meet this burden despite the Court having its own copy of the manual.

In my practice we have seen a trend to manipulating the “substantial compliance” standard into a de facto prejudice standard.  The burden is being subtly shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that he or she was somehow prejudiced by the officer’s failure to comply with the NHTSA standards.  For example; if the officer does not articulate that he advised the suspect not to raise his or her arms, the Court says that he substantially complied by merely mentioning that he was trained in NHTSA protocols.  If, however, the defense points out that the officer did not give the proper instruction and still scored the test in a way negative to the defendant, the court may consider excluding some portion or all of the test.  Case law can be helpful on this point.

In State v. Clay, 34 Ohio St. 2d 250, 298 N.E.2d 137 (1973) the court ruled, “[h]owever, if by cross examination or otherwise, the defense places such compliance at issue, it then is incumbent upon the State, in order to maintain its burden of proof, to offer the methods and regulations into evidence and prove compliance.”  Some courts may try to take Judicial Notice of the manual (See Evid. R 201) when no manual was introduced.  In State v. Wells 2005-Ohio-5008 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist., Montgomery County) held that the court cannot assume judicial notice when the record does not demonstrate a request for judicial notice or a reference to the manual by the trial court.  The 9th District Court of Appeals issued a great decision on the issue of substantial compliance.  Specifically, the issue involved giving the HGN test while the Defendant was seated in the car.  The Court found that this was not substantial compliance. (State v. Haneberg 5/29/2007, 2007-Ohio-2561, 9th District Court of Appeals).

The validity of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests results is dependent upon law enforcement practitioners following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring. NHTSA’s SFST Student Manual states that the procedures demonstrated in the training program describe how SFSTs should be administered under ideal conditions, but that ideal conditions do not always exist in the field. Variations from ideal conditions, and deviations from the standardized procedures, might affect the evidentiary weight that should be given to test results.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in DaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber Heights,Beavercreek, and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook,www.facebook.com/daytondui and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.comor write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.