Posts Tagged ‘kettering dui defense’

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”

The Kettering DUI Law Firm of Charles M. Rowland II

November 26th, 2013

Kettering DUI law firmThe Kettering DUI law firm of Babb & Rowland  has proudly represented the accused drunk driver in the Kettering Municipal Court since 1995.  You can find us on the web at www.KetteringDUI.com, www.KetteringOVI.com, and www.MoraineDUI.com.  According to AVVO, Charles M. Rowland II is the only Superb 10/10 rated attorney who devotes 100% of his practice to DUI defense in Kettering.  He has also been featured in Car & Driver and Time Magazine for excellence in the field of DUI defense.  

Kettering DUI?  If you have been arrested for OVI inCenterville, KetteringMoraine or Washington Township, your misdemeanor OVI case will be heard in the Kettering Municipal Court.  If you need to find information about a case in the Kettering Municipal Court you can searchHERE for case information/case look-up,  or visit the court’s web site HERE.  You should also follow our Kettering DUI law firm on Facebook where we will keep you up to date on OVI saturation patrols and OVI checkpoints in and around the jurisdiction of the Kettering Municipal Court.

If you are arrested in Moraine, Ohio on suspicion of an OVI (better known as “DUI” or drunk driving), your OVI case may be handled in the Moraine Mayor’s Court which is located at 4200 Dryden Road, Moraine, Ohio 45439.  Your attorney will meet with a prosecuting attorney who represents the city at the Moraine City Building for purposes of plea negotiations.  If your Moraine OVI case requires a motion to suppress, or if you request that the matter be set for trial, your case will be transferred to the Kettering Municipal Court for adjudication pursuant to Ohio law.  Our Kettering DUI law firm is ready to represent you in the Moraine Mayor’s Court as well as the Kettering Municipal Court.

 

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.

The Kettering DUI law firm of Babb & Rowland and Kettering 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.”

 Our Kettering DUI Law firm offers city-specific DUI information at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville 

 

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.

Arrested for OVI in Dayton, Ohio? (by DaytonDUI)

June 4th, 2013

dayton courtsIf you are arrested for drunk driving in the City of Dayton, your misdemeanor DUI case will be heard in the Dayton Municipal Court.  The Dayton Municipal Court is located at 301 West Third Street Dayton, Ohio 45402.  You can visit the Dayton Municipal Court’s website at: www.DaytonMunicipalCourt.org. Office hours for the Clerk of Court are 8:00am to 4:30pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, for the acceptance of case filings and payments. Parking, Traffic and Criminal payments can also be paid online at www.PayMyFine.org.  A full list of contact numbers is available on the Court’s website and the Clerk can be reached at (937) 333-4300.

Five full-time elected judges, selected on a nonpartisan ballot to serve for a six-year term, serve the Dayton Municipal Court.  Currently the serving judges are: The Honorable Chris Roberts, The Honorable John S. Pickrel, The Honorable Daniel Gehres, The Honorable Carl S. Henderson and The Honorable Dierdre Logan. Two full-time Magistrates who hear certain civil cases, small claims cases, eviction procedures and initial appearances for defendants summoned in for arraignment also serve the court. They also preside over traffic and criminal cases.

The Dayton Municipal Court has been serving the citizens of Dayton since its creation in 1913.  The jurisdiction of the Court includes everything within the boundaries of the City of Dayton. The court has jurisdiction over a violation of any ordinance of the City of Dayton; any state of Ohio statutory misdemeanor or traffic violation committed in Dayton; and jurisdiction to preside over preliminary hearings for felony cases that occur in the City of Dayton. Civil law jurisdiction includes cases when the amount in dispute is $15,000 or less and for small claims cases when the amount in dispute is $3,000 or less.

According to its 2010 Annual Report the Court “experienced an overall decrease in new case filings in Traffic, Criminal and Civil divisions. Traffic cases decreased by 15%, Criminal by 15%, Civil by 7%, and Small Claims increased by 6.5%.”  There were 24 jury trials heard in the Court and 2010 saw 526 new DUI cases brought in the Dayton Municipal Court.  Charles M. Rowland II (DaytonDUI) saw an increase in the number of Dayton Municipal Court DUI cases that he took in 2010.

Dayton DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’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.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@CharlesRowland.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Related articles

Blood Contamination & Candida Albicans (by DaytonDUI)

May 10th, 2013

Feeling Faint

If a blood sample is not properly preserved it can decompose.  One of the results of decomposition is the creation of alcohol.  According to Lawrence Taylor in his seminal Drunk Driving Defense, 6th Ed., pp. 561, “Ethyl alcohol is generated by fermentation of carbohydrates and proteins in the blood sample.  This occurs through the actions of various microorganisms.  The simplest and one of the most common processes is the breakdown of enzymes by one of various species of the yeast Candida, such as Candida albicans.”  The results of the fermentation in the blood vial is dramatic.  For example, a blood sample which contains no alcohol can decompose and cause a reading of .25 percent or even higher, depending on the stage of decay. (See Taylor, Id. at 561).

Proper handling of the blood sample requires the refrigeration of the blood sample.  The problem is that refrigeration can only slow down the decomposition process not end it completely.  Another protective measure is the addition of a preservative, such as sodium fluoride.  Scientific studies (as cited in Taylor, Id. at 563) suggest that sodium fluoride can be ineffective in preventing alcohol production by Candida albicans.  Counsel should also be aware of common human errors which can occur following collection of the blood sample.  It is not at all uncommon for the blood to be collected and the vial not inverted to allow the mixing of the preservative and the sample.  Make sure that your DUI defense attorney is aware of these problems which may prevent the introduction of your blood test, or provide you with a viable defense in your case.

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”

Related articles