Posts Tagged ‘ohio dui attorney’

Ohio DUI Crackdown Begins Today!

August 15th, 2014

ohio duiYou can expect a major increase in Ohio DUI enforcement beginning today.  Operation “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” will put 99 law enforcement agencies on our roads with over 8,400 hours of extra enforcement that will run through Labor Day.  The national Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over crackdown is a program organized by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and focuses on combining high-visibility enforcement with heightened public awareness through advertising and publicity.

If you want to receive updated information on Dayton OVI checkpoint locations, enhanced traffic enforcement, saturation patrols and other important developments that affect you, sign up for text alerts on the main page of this blog. OVI checkpoint alerts will be sent directly to your mobile device/smartphone in the location you choose in the Miami Valley. In the past month we have alerted our followers to the State Route 35 traffic initiative and three local sobriety checkpoints. You should also know that we respect your trust and we will never send you irrelevant information and/or advertisements. This service is free and available to the general public.

You can also put DaytonDUI on your Android Smart phone via the DaytonDUI app. The app helps you know your rights and know yourself by providing a drink tally so that you do not overindulge. You can send safe drinking tips to friends or use the app to find the nearest taxi for a safe trip home. The app brings you the best of DaytonDUI’s video and audio content and gives you a chance to take pictures and record memories so that you can aid in your own defense. We provide OVI checkpoint information because our sincere desire is to make our roads a safer place.

Ohio DUI 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 schedule a free Ohio DUI consultation 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

Problems With The Intoxilyzer 8000: You Blew Too Much!

June 16th, 2014

intoxilyzer 8000The Intoxilyzer 8000 measures how much breath you provide by something called a ‘pressure transducer.’ Instead of directly measuring the volume of your breath by a pressure switch, like the old Intoxilyzer 5000 did, the 8000 indirectly measures breath. Not only is it needlessly complicated, it simply doesn’t work! The flow sensor systems in Florida’s Intoxilyzer 8000′s are so unreliable that FDLE ordered that police STOP KEEPING RECORDS of the system in monthly checks. In 2011, a system-wide check showed that 40% of the machines in Florida couldn’t accurately measure breath volume! (Source). As of this writing, the author knows of no testing in Ohio to determine if this is a problem.  In fact, recent court decisions reveal that precious little (if any) testing has been done by the Ohio Department of Health prior to the implementation of the machine in Ohio.

The protocol for the Intoxilyzer 8000 in Ohio requires that you produce merely 1.1 liters of breath, less than the amount of air required to fill a two liter pop bottle.  The average adult can exhale between three and four liters of air.  If you are unlucky enough to be tested on this machine, the police will urge you to keep blowing your entire breath into the machine. However, such a long breath will artificially increase the apparent amount of alcohol in your breath by skewing the sample toward your “deep lung air,” where the alcohol is more highly concentrated. If you only blow only the required 1.1 liters, you will give an adequate sample, which may be up to 30% less than the sample that the police want you to give. 

The Intoxilyzer 8000 is Ohio’s breath testing device in DUI cases.  One of the major flaws of the machine is that its testing protocol can result in inflated tests. The more you blow, the higher it goes.

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.”

 Find more Intoxilyzer 8000 information check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Ruling Could Doom Ohio Stoned Driving Rules

May 28th, 2014

stoned driving

Stoned driving laws took a hit this week when Arizona ruled that per se limits on marijuana could not be applied.

Ohio has adopted a draconian impairment law that punishes drivers for having a metabolite of marijuana in their system.  In effect that means that you are stoned driving if you smoke or ingest marijuana the metabolite “hydroxy-THC” that will remain in your body long after the “high” has dissipated.  This means that you may be “impaired” for purposes of the law, but not in any way be impaired by the drug.  If you visit Colorado to legally use recreational marijuana and return to Ohio, you are impaired for up to thirty days thereafter.  This is an absurd and unjust law that gives too much power to law enforcement and enshrines Ohio’s War on Drugs into law.

With states like Colorado legalizing the sale of marijuana, jurisdictions are scrambling to deal with the consequences. Last month, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled 4 to 1 that draconian laws designed to handle driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol could not be applied directly to pot because of the way the drug interacts with the bloodstream.

The high court justices agreed that the statute’s wording was ambiguous and should be interpreted in a way that does not lead to an absurd result, which is what would happen if prosecutors were allowed to implement a zero-tolerance reading of the law. “This interpretation would create criminal liability regardless of how long the metabolite remains in the driver’s system or whether it has any impairing effect,” Justice Robert M. Brutinel wrote for the majority. “For example, at oral argument the state acknowledged that, under its reading of the statute, if a metabolite could be detected five years after ingesting a proscribed drug, a driver who tested positive for trace elements of a non-impairing substance could be prosecuted.”

The court was uncomfortable criminalizing legal conduct, as Arizona voters legalized medical marijuana use in a 2010 referendum. The majority also noted that certain legal drugs can share a metabolite with an illegal drug, which causes a problem with the drugged driving statute that automatically criminalizes the presence of the metabolite in the bloodstream.”Because Section 28-1381(A)(3) does not require the state to prove that a substance discovered in a driver’s body is actually metabolized from a proscribed drug, the state’s interpretation would permit prosecution if the discovered substance is a metabolite of a proscribed drug even if the proscribed drug was never ingested,” Justice Brutinel wrote. “These results are absurd and make the state’s argument untenable.”  The Supreme Court majority declared that the legislature must have meant that any amount of the impairing hydroxy-THC was a criminal act, not the substance that lingers in the bloodstream for thirty days.  Source: Arizona v. Shilgevorkyan (Arizona Supreme Court, 4/22/2014) and www.TheNewspaper.com.

The take-away from this decision is that Ohio needs to legalize marijuana so as to avoid massive injustice.  Ohio can punish stoned driving without making a de facto zero tolerance law that will do nothing but foster disrespect for the law and the people who enforce it.

 

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 about stoned driving contact me, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

 

An Explanation of Ohio’s Proposed “Annie’s Law”

May 22nd, 2014

Here is an explanation of Ohio’s proposed “Annie’s Law” from Dayton’s Fox 45.  If passed, the lawwould require first time OVI offenders to blow into an ignition interlock device before they start their car. Right now Ohio law only requires drivers with multiple OVI’s to have an ignition interlock device.  “For the first time it’s going a little too far, said Danny Moore of Dayton.It seems really unfair to me. It seems like a waste of money for someone who just made a mistake, agreed Mary Damar of Dayton.” Mothers Against Drunk Driving are urging Ohio lawmakers to pass Annie’s Law.

annie's lawAttorney 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 Annie’s Law check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Keywords: Annie’s Law