If you have been following developments in DUI law, you have no doubt heard about the United States Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013). The case deals with when, and under what circumstances the government is required to seek a warrant prior to drawing blood from a suspected DUI offender. Below is a quote from the case which provides a reasonable (and short) analysis of the case. If you want to read [Read the full post. . .]
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 [Read the full post. . .]
A first offense Kettering OVI is defined at O.R.C. 4511.19 as a DUI with no priors within 6 years. A first offense OVI can be charged in three ways. The first charge is caused by testing over the legal limit of .08% B.A.C. (example O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d)). These types of offenses are also referred to as “per se” violations. A second way to be charged is for violating the high-tier provision of Ohio’s OVI law. Ohio has also created [Read the full post. . .]
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 [Read the full post. . .]
Have you ever wondered where the money goes following a vehicle forfeiture?
Does your police agency have some really cool sports cars, tricked out SUVs or ruggedly expensive off-road vehicles? Chances are they got it via Ohio’s vehicle forfeiture law. Pursuant to R.C. 4503.234(C)(1), the agency that arrested a defendant has a virtual right of first refusal on any forfeited vehicle. All they have to do is satisfy the lienholder or the innocent non-owners interest if they have protected [Read the full post. . .]