Posts Tagged ‘Kettering ohio’

« Older Entries

OVI Trial Strategy: The Cop Was Not A Liar (by DaytonDUI)

February 27th, 2013

Most Americans trust and respect police officers.  If you think that you will be able to go into a courtroom and overcome this ingrained belief you are, most of the time, dead wrong.  Americans do not like drunk drivers.  If you think that you can win an OVI case by calling the police officer a liar, you will probably lose.  One of the biggest mistakes an attorney can make is to position your case so that the jury must choose between believing the officer’s version of events or your version of events.  Jury verdict research suggest a modified approach.

The officer is most likely just doing his job when he comes in contact with your client.  Most cases involve an officer that acts professionally.  Jurors will see this.  Instead of being combative, cross-examine the officer in such a way that you meld his story with your client’s.  Generally develop the theme that the officer took the most damning aspects of the evidence and used them against your client instead of giving him a fair chance.  An example is bloodshot or glassy eyes.  ”There are other common causes of red eyes other than alcohol, aren’t there officer?”  You could ask about whether or not the officer inquired about other causes, whether the officer asked the accused to explain and whether or not the officer has any training in determining what constitutes bloodshot/glassy/red eyes.  When you take this approach the officer’s testimony will often open a door.  You could argue that the officer made a mistake just this once.  You may also be able to argue that the officer had his mind made up that your client was drunk as soon as he made initial contact. Lawrence Taylor, a great DUI attorney from California, often begins his cross-examination  of the officer by asking, “You testified that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Is it possible you are wrong?”

Nothing substitutes for experience and preparation.  A careful and thorough reading of the discovery, a detailed examination of any video tapes that exist, a visit to the scene of the arrest and a comprehensive interview with your client will help you develop at theme that will allow the jury to see the facts in a light most favorable to your client.  The goal is not a total anhiliation of the officer, but a path to reasonable doubt.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Huber Heights, Beavercreek, Centerville, Springboro, Franklin 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 Twitterupdates 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.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Related articles

3 comments »

Posted in Illegal Police Stops

Tags:

Kettering Municipal Court Traffic Safety Program (by DaytonDUI)

November 27th, 2012

Kettering Municipal Court offers a Traffic Safety Program for eligible participants which allows you to attend a class instead of receiving points for your traffic citation(s). Classes are held monthly on a Tuesday evening from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. and are taught by police officers at either the Kettering Police Department, 3600 Shroyer Road, or the Centerville Police Department, 155 W. Spring Valley Road. Upon successful completion of the program, your citation will be dismissed and will not appear on your driving record, and you will receive no points on your driving record.

You may be eligible for the Traffic Safety Program if:

  • You can provide proof of automobile insurance
  • Your traffic violation does not have any accompanying criminal charges
  • You have not had a moving traffic violation within the last 24 months
  • You have not been through the Kettering Traffic Safety Program within the last 24 months
  • You plead guilty to the offense by signing the back of your ticket
  • You have not already paid the fine for your citation
  • You must register and pay for the class by the court date listed on your citation

In addition, if you were cited for any of the following violations, you will not be eligible for the program:

  • Driving under suspension
  • Driving under the influence (of alcohol or other drugs)
  • Drag Racing
  • Reckless operation/fleeing police
  • Passing a school bus and school zone violations 10 mph or more over the limit
  • Leaving the scene of an accident
  • Traffic accident violations and violations that may result in liability issues
  • Intentional damage to property or injury to persons

The Traffic Safety Program Director has the right to deny entry to anyone based on past history or inability to meet program criteria.

Sign Up for the Program

If you would like to sign up for the Traffic Safety Program, you must apply in person at Kettering Municipal Court Probation Department. Be sure to come in to apply on or before your court date.

Please be aware: failure to attend the class when assigned will result in a guilty plea being accepted by the Court and the fee for the program will be applied to court costs, fines and school costs. For questions about the program, please contact our Probation Department at 937-296-3328.

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.

Related articles

1 comment »

Posted in Kettering DUI Attorney, Ohio Traffic Law, Speeding

Tags:

Proof Beyond All Reasonable Doubt And Other Closing Arguments (by DaytonDUI)

September 17th, 2012

Imagine that you woke up with a sore throat.  It persists throughout the day and into the next.  As the week drags on you feel worse and worse and your wife demands that you go to the doctor.  You hate doctors, but you feel so lousy that you agree to get your throat checked out.  When you arrive you fill out the requisite forms and wait longer than you feel is necessary.  Just as you are nearing your boiling point a nurse calls your name and leads you into a small room.  You tell her that you’ve had a sore throat for the past few days and that you feel lethargic.  She dutifully writes down the information and tells you that the doctor will be in to see you shortly.

A few minutes later the doctor opens the door and begins to look at your throat.  He tells you to say “ahh” and touches his hand to your forehead.  ”No fever, but your throat is very red,” he says.  ”Have you ever smoked?” he asks.  When you mutter that you smoked cigars a few years ago and begin to explain that you smoked cigarettes when you were in college the doctor abruptly cuts you off.  ”I have concluded that you have throat cancer!”  The words hit you like a punch.  As you are reeling the doctor begins to tell you that he’s dealt with people like you before.  ”Cancer is serious and I can’t take the chance that you only have a sore throat.”  You protest, “what about additional tests, an M.R.I. or some other tests?”  ”No, no, no,” the doctor says.  ”I am so sick of people who don’t see cancer close up, thinking that it is no big deal.  Just take an antibiotic you say, well mister I’ve been called to the bedside of people dying of cancer and I’ll be damned if I’ll let you hurt yourself or someone else by not getting your larynx removed.”  ”I WANT A SECOND OPINION,” you yell, but the doctor does not seem to care.  ”Nurse, prep the patient for surgery!”

If this scenario seems far-fetched, you have never been arrested for drunk driving.  Officers are self-proclaimed experts on spotting clues of impairment.  The come into court spouting the pseudo-scientific prattle fronted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  Invariably, they have noted bloodshot and/or glassy eyes accompanied by slurred speech and an odor of an alcoholic beverage.  They ask you to do amazingly subjective tests which amount to nothing more than “stupid human tricks.”  You do not get a chance to practice or try again.  They do not conduct an objective investigation into your state of impairment, but merely lead you through a series of steps that will inevitably lead to your arrest. Like our fictional doctor, the officer may have dealt up-close with the tragedy of drunk driving and considers it his or her duty to prevent anyone from being affected by this all-to-preventable devastation.  Like our fictional patient, you get no second opinion.

It is up to your defense attorney to explain to a jury that the officer’s observations do not lead to the conclusion that you are impaired.  Was your weaving caused by alcohol or by an ill-timed cell phone call?  Are your bloodshot and glassy eyes a sign of having consumed too much alcohol or by the fact that you are tired?  Is that slurred speech or do you simply speak differently from the officer?  Is you performance on physical tests affected by your weight, your gender, your bum knee, or the fact that you are scared to death?

At the end of every drunk driving trial, the judge tells the jury that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is “proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person’s own affairs.” O.R.C. 2901.05(E) [emphasis added]  The penalties for DUI are, in some respects, just as serious as the decision to get a medical procedure and the ramifications of a conviction last throughout a person’s life.  If you are faced with the possibility of an Ohio DUI trial, please contact Charles M. Rowland II immediately.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Huber Heights, Beavercreek, Centerville, Springboro, Franklin 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 Twitterupdates 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.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Related articles

2 comments »

Posted in DUI Court Process, Field Tests (SFSTs), Illegal Police Stops

Tags:

The 47 Types & 38 Causes of Nystagmus; (It’s Not Just Caused by Alcohol)

August 24th, 2012

Field sobriety test

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. The HGN is a test of your eyes wherein the testing officer is looking for abnormal movements call saccades.  These movements make the eye appear to bounce or wobble.  The officer uses this movement to make a correlation to alcohol use.  This would valid only if we are able to demonstrate that nystagmus is specific to alcohol impairment.  However, we know that there are other causes of nystagmus.  It is up to your DUI lawyer to demonstrate another valid reason for what the officer is observing.  You can find information about the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and its biases on this site.

Listed beloware some other scientifically recognized causes of nystagmus.

47 Types of Nystagmus

1. Acquired

2. Anticipatory(Induced)

3. Arthrokinetic(Induced,Somatosensory)

4. Associated(Induced,Stransky’s

5. AudioKinetic(Induced)

6. Bartel’s(Induced)

7. Brun’s

8. Centripetal

9. Cervical(NeckTorsion,Vestibular-0basilarArteryInsufficiency

10.Crcular/Elliptic/Oblique (Alternataing Windmill, Circumduction, Diagonal,

Elliptic, Gyratory, Oblique, Radiary)

11.Congenital (Fixation, Hereditary)

12.Convergence

13.Convergence Invocked

14.Disaccociated, Disjunctive

15.Downbeat

16.Drug Induced (Barbiturate, Bow Tie, Induced)

17.Epileptic (Ictal

18.Flash Induced

19.Gaze-Evoked (Deviational, Gaze-Paretic, Neurasthenic, Seducible, Setting-In)

20.Horizontal

21.Induced (Provoked)

22.Intermittent Vertical

23.Jerk

24.Latent/Manifest Latent (Monocular Fixation, Unimacular)

25.Lateral Medullary

26.Lid

27.Miner’s (Occupational)

28.Muscle Paretic (Myasthenic)

29.Optokinetic (Induced, Optomotor, Panoramic, Railway, Sigma)

30.Optokinetic After-Induced (Post-Optokinetic, Reverse Post-Optokinetic)

31.Pendular (Talantropia)

32.Periodic/Aperiodic Alternating

33.Physiologic (End-Point, Fatigue)

34.Pursuit After Induced

35.Pursuit Defect

36.Pseudo Spontaneous

37.Rebound

38.Reflex (Baer’s)

39.See-Saw

40.Somatosensory

41.Spontaneous

42.Stepping Around

43.Torsional

44.Uniocular

45.Upbeat

46.Vertical

47.Vestibular (Agotropic, Geotro-Pic, Bechterew’s, Caloric, Compensatory,Electrical/Faradic/Gal Vanic, Labyrinthine, Pneumatic/Compression, Positional/Alcohol, Pseudo Caloric)

Obtained from Dr. L. F. Dell’Osso, Nystagmus, Saccadic Intrusions/Oscillations and Oscillopsia, 3 Current Neuro-Opthamology 147 (1989).  There are also 38 verified causes for a horizontal gaze nystagmus other than alcohol impairment.

 

38 Causes of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus

1. ProblemsWithTheInnerEarLabyrinth

2. Irrigating The Ears With Warm Or Cold Water Under Peculiar Weather

Conditions

3. Influenza

4. StreptococcusInfection

5. Vertigo

6. Measles

7. Syphilis

8. Arteriosclerosis

9. MuscularDystrophy

10.Multiple Sclerosis

11.Korchaff’s Syndrome

12.Brain Hemorrhage

13.Epilepsy

14.Hypertension

15.Motion Sickness

16.Sunstroke

17.Eyestrain

18.Eye Muscle Fatigue

19.Glaucoma

20.Changes In Atmospheric Pressure

21.Consumption Of Excessive Amounts Of Caffeine

22.Excessive Exposure To Nicotine

23.Aspirin

24.Circadian Rhythms

25.Acute Trauma To The Head

26.Chronic Trauma To The Head

27.Some Prescription Drugs, Tranquilizers, Pain Medications, Anti-Convulsants

28.Barbiturates

29.Disorders Of The Vestibular Apparatus And Brain Stem

30.Cerebellum Dysfunction

31.Heredity

32.Diet

33.Toxins

34.Exposure To Solvents, PCB’s, Dry-Cleaning Fumes, Carbon Monoxide

35.Extreme Chilling

36.Lesions

37.Continuous Movement Of The Visual Field Past The Eyes

38.Antihistamine Use

See Shultz v. State, 664 A.2d 60, 77 (Md. App. 1995) citing State v. Witte; State v. Clark, State v. Superior Court, and Mark A. Rouleau, Unreliability of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, 4 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 439 (1989); Louise J. Gordy & Roscoe N. Gray, 3A Attorney’s Textbook of Medicine § § 84.63 and 84.64 (1990).

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

No comments »

Posted in Field Tests (SFSTs)

Tags:

Alcohol and Energy Drinks (by DaytonDUI.com)

August 23rd, 2012

One 23.5 ounce can of the Four Loko alcoholic ...

In 2005, the Drink Four  Brewing Company introduced Four Loko to the American malt beverage market. The name “Four” is derived from the original energy drink’s four main ingredients: alcohol, caffeine, taurine, and guarana.  There are three product lines within the Four brand:

  • Four Loko — contains either 6%, 8%, or 12% alcohol by volume (ABV), depending on state regulations, and is packaged in 23.5 oz. cans
  • Poco Loko — contains 8% alcohol by volume (ABV), and is packaged in 16 oz. cans
  • Four Loko in bottles — contains either 6% or 8% alcohol by volume (ABV), and is packaged in 11.2 oz. glass bottles

Original formulations of both beverages were a malt liquor-based, caffeinated alcoholic energy drink with added guarana and taurine. The formulations were developed by three alumni of The Ohio State University: Chris Hunter, Jeff Wright, and Jaisen Freeman.  Almost immediately following the introduction of the drinks, a coalition formed in opposition to the beverage.  Critics suggested that consuming energy drinks with alcohol can be harmful in reducing the perception of alcohol intoxication and/or in leading to increased alcohol or drug consumption.

In 2009, a group of US state attorneys general began active investigations of companies which produced and sold caffeinated alcohol beverages, on the grounds that they were being inappropriately marketed to a teenage audience.  The attorneys general were also concerned that these drinks could pose health risks by masking feelings of intoxication.  Colleges and universities joined the chorus against the beverages in 2010 when they began to see injuries and blackouts related to the drink’s use.  The University of Rhode Island banned this product from their campus on November 5, 2010. [sourced via Wikipedia].  Several stores, including Tops Markets, Price Chopper and Wegmans have voluntarily pulled the product from their shelves.

Under mounting pressure, Phusion withdrew Four Loko from the State of New York in November, 2009.  The beverage was banned in Oregon by a 4-1 vote of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission in that same month.  Citing health and safety concerns, Oklahoma joined the movement against the sale of Four Loko.  Michigan soon followed suit.  Id.  According to a statement from the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, “The decision was made in light of several studies regarding alcohol energy drinks, the widespread community concerns aired by substance abuse prevention groups, parent groups and various members of the public, as well as the FDA’s decision to further investigate these products.” [source]  The New York State Liquor Authority moved for a full  ban as of November 19, 2010. New York state senator Chuck Schumer and New York City councilman James Sanders Jr. have approached the Obama administration to ban Four Loko across the state of New York.  Ohio did not join the stampede.  Instead, they took a wait and see approach.  ”We are continuing to monitor the situation,” a representative of the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Liquor Control said. “However, a legislative change would be needed to the statute in order for the superintendent to disapprove a product.” [source]

On November 17, 2010 the U.S. FDA Food and Drug Administration dropped the proverbial hammer.  They issued a warning letter to four manufacturers of caffeinated alcohol beverages citing that the caffeine added to their malt alcoholic beverages is an “unsafe food additive” and said that further action, including seizure of their products, may occur under federal law.  It declared that beverages that combine caffeine with alcohol, such as Four energy drinks, are a “public health concern” and can’t stay on the market in their current form.  But is this drink really a public menace?

As reported at Alcohol Problem and Solution, a site maintained by Dr. David J. Hanson of the State University of New York, the research does not support the level of outrage generated by the public.  To examine the scientific evidence on the effects of mixing energy drinks and alcohol, a review of the research was conducted. It found

  • virtually no evidence that energy drinks influence any behavioral effects of alcohol,
  • no reliable evidence that energy drinks effect the perceived level of intoxication by drinkers,
  • no evidence that mixing energy drinks and alcohol leads to alcohol or drug abuse or dependence, and
  • no adverse health effects for healthy individuals from combining energy drinks and alcohol.

The review was conducted by researchers at the Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences at Utrect University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, and published in the International Journal of General Medicine.  If you wish to review the research, please consult the following:

  • Greenemeier, L. Why Are Caffeinated Alcoholic Energy Drinks Dangerous? Scientific American, November 9, 2010.
  • Hendrick, B. Dangerous Cocktail: Energy Drinks + Alcohol: Mixing Booze With Energy Drinks Triples Risk of Getting Drunk. WebMD Health News, February 12, 2010.
  • Join Together Staff. Combining Energy Drubks with Alcohol More Dangerous than Drinking Alcohol Alone. JoinTogetherOnline.com, April 18, 2011.
  • Jones, S.C., et al. Why (not) alcohol energy drinks? A qualitative study with Australian university students. Drug and Alcohol Review, published online May 24, 2011. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00319.x
  • Minderhout, C. Energy Drinks and Alcohol Still a Risky Mix. Food Safety News, May 2, 2011.
  • Park, A. A Bad Mix: Why Alcohol and Energy Drinks Are Dangerous:
    Healthland Time, April 18, 2011.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in 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

12 comments »

Posted in DUI & College

Tags: