If you are in need of an Ohio DUI attorney, consider Charles M. Rowland II. Charles served as the Xenia City Prosecutor. In that capacity he has prosecuted DUI offenses. This experience gives him unique insight into how prosecutors will approach your case. Ohio DUI Attorney Charles Rowland has served as a “Special Prosecutor” on high-profile felony cases. Charles is a proud member of the National College for DUI defense and in 2006 attended the intensive seminar on DUI [Read the full post. . .]
Is it a crime to refuse to take a breath test?
Ohio has adopted O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) which makes it a crime to refuse to take an evidentiary chemical test if you have a prior OVI (drunk driving) or OVUAC (juvenile/underage drunk driving) conviction any time within the last twenty (20) years. If you refuse and you have a prior within twenty (20) years then the penalties for your OVI offense will be double the mandatory minimum. (See generally the “Penalties” [Read the full post. . .]
This DUI law update sets forth an alternate interpretation of MADDs attempt to pass Annie’s Law. Is it possible that MADD has seen the error of its ways and is seeking to do damage control? The most common complaint about DUI enforcement in the State of Ohio concerns the ability of a police officer to seize your license and prevent you from driving for 15 or 30 days (first offense) before you are even taken to court. We often hear [Read the full post. . .]
DUI case law update: State v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4258
For most of my career I have had to deal with a tremendous disadvantage in DUI cases. In 1984, the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Vega, 12 Ohio St. 3d 185, 465 N.E.2d 1303 (1984) which was interpreted to prevent an attack on the breath test machine if it attacked the “general reliability” of a breath alcohol test if it was “conducted in accordance with methods [Read the full post. . .]
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. . .]