Posts Tagged ‘Ohio OVI defense’

Alcohol Is A Central Nervous System Depressant

February 18th, 2014

central nervous system depressantAlcohol is classified as a Central Nervous System Depressant for its effects on the human body.  It is listed as such for purposes of DUI investigations in the 2013 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter NHTSA) “DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing” Participant Guide. See NHTSA, HS 178 R5/13.  CNS Depressant type drugs (see below) slow down the operations of the brain, and usually depress the heartbeat, respiration, and many other processes controlled by the brain. The most familiar and ubiquitous Central Nervous System Depressant is alcohol.

Other Depressants of the Central Nervous System include:

• Barbiturates (such as Secobarbital (Seconal), and Pentobarbital (Luminal))
• Non-Barbiturates (GHB-gamma-hydroxybutyrate and Soma)
• Anti-Anxiety Tranquilizers (Such as Valium, Librium, Xanax, and Rohpynol)
• Anti-Depressants (such as Prozac and Elavil)
• Muscle relaxants and many other drugs (Soma)

Depressant drugs usually are taken orally, in the form of pills, capsules, liquids, etc.  In general, people under the influence of any CNS Depressant drugs look and act like people under the influence of alcohol.  General indicators of Central Nervous System Depressant include, but are not limited to the following types of behaviors:

• “Drunken” behavior and appearance
• Uncoordinated
• Drowsy
• Sluggish
• Disoriented
• Thick, slurred speech

Eye indicators of Central Nervous System Depressant influence are:

• Horizontal gaze nystagmus usually will be present
• Vertical nystagmus may be present (with high doses)
• Pupil size usually will not be effected, except that Methaqualone and Soma may cause pupil dilation

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.”

Central Nervous System Depressant information and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Ohio DUI Law Enhances Habitual Offender Registry

January 2nd, 2014

Ohio DUI lawUnder Ohio DUI law, anyone with five or more convictions for OVI during the past 20 years is placed on the Ohio Habitual Offender Registry.  Of course, it would not be Ohio DUI law if there were not some quirks.  For example, out-of-state convictions do not count, nor do convictions more than 20 years old.  You must also have at least one conviction since September 30, 2008, the date when the law took effect.  Juveniles are included and dead people are not.  If you are involved in one incident which results in multiple charges, the conviction only counts once for registry purposes.  To access the Habitual Offender Registry, click here.  Click here to see Ohio Revised Code 5502.10, which established the Registry. Click here to see a complete list of offenses that are considered drunken driving-related for purposes of this Registry.

This week the Ohio Department of Public Safety has launched an enhanced version of the Ohio Habitual Offender Registry which is designed to produced a more up-to-date, complete and searchable listing of habitual offenders.  Several recent media reports had identified gaps in the registry, which was created in 2008. The upgrades dramatically improve the older paper system and the results. Instead of relying on local court jurisdictions to submit forms to add a habitual offender to the registry, the new system compiles the information automatically from already existing electronic records.  This change in Ohio DUI law was made to coincide with the Ohio State Highway Patrol’s increased OVI enforcement during the holiday season.

OVI Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio and protecting you.  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.”

Ohio DUI law information and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

MADD and NHTSA Push For Expanded Use of Ignition Interlock Devices

December 30th, 2013

 ignition-interlock

Mothers Against Drunk Driving and their government partners at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration want 2014 to be the year that all states expand the use of ignition interlock devices to include anyone convicted of a drunk driving offense.

Currently, ignition interlock devices are used in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. However, states vary widely in how the ignition interlock devices are used and which drivers are required to install them. In West Virginia, for example, interlock devices are only ordered at a judge’s discretion while Michigan mandates their use for drivers who are found with a BAC more than twice the state’s legal limit.  In Ohio, ignition interlock devices are required for any driver accused of a second OVI (drunk driving) offense and are otherwise discretionary to the judge.  NHTSA and MADD want to eliminate these discrepancies and urge the adoption of a model rule which covers first-time offenders with a BAC just over the legal limit and would require the installation of ignition interlock devices on hundreds of thousands more vehicles.  Currently, only 20 states require the devices for anyone convicted of a drunken driving-related offense.

Studies show that ignition interlock devices are about 75 percent effective in keeping those previously convicted of drunken driving from repeating their behavior. While there are numerous different designs, the typical ignition interlock requires the driver to blow into a tube that measures breath alcohol levels. If a person fails he or she may try again, for up to three attempts before the vehicle is locked down.  Other versions may also use cameras to record a person’s behavior behind the wheel. Courts may access the data recorded and, in some jurisdictions, a motorist who blew over the limit may face additional penalties.  Ignition Interlock devices typically cost about $75 and may run $50 a month or more to maintain.

 

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.”

 Find information on Ignition Interlock devices on this blog, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

 

Child Endangerment and DUI Laws In Ohio

December 2nd, 2013

child endangerment and duiThere is an intersection between the child endangerment and DUI laws in Ohio.  Child endangerment is an act or omission that exposes a child to psychological, emotional or physical abuse. Child abuse based on the offense of child endangerment is normally a misdemeanor, but endangerment that results in mental illness or serious physical illness or injury is a felony. See abused child, neglected child.  Child endangerment and DUI laws are implicated when a person drives drunk with a child in the car.

Ohio Revised Code 2919.22(C)(1) addresses the child endangerment and DUI laws as follows,

(C) (1) No person shall operate a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state in violation of division (A) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code when one or more children under eighteen years of age are in the vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may be convicted at the same trial or proceeding of a violation of this division and a violation of division (A) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code that constitutes the basis of the charge of the violation of this division. For purposes of sections 4511.191 to 4511.197 of the Revised Code and all related provisions of law, a person arrested for a violation of this division shall be considered to be under arrest for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them or for operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of alcohol, a controlled substance, or a metabolite of a controlled substance in the whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine.

(2) As used in division (C)(1) of this section:

(a) “Controlled substance” has the same meaning as in section 3719.01 of the Revised Code.

(b) “Vehicle,” “streetcar,” and “trackless trolley” have the same meanings as in section 4511.01 of the Revised Code.

Based on the law you can be charged with both child endangerment and DUI in the same case so long as the government can prove that you drove in violation of the DUI law (O.R.C. 4511.19) while someone under 18 years of age was in your car.  Child endangerment charges can range from a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail to a second degree felony, punishable up to 8 years prison.  Should you be arrested for DUI with children in the vehicle then you will be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor. If the child was seriously injured and this is your second child endangerment charge then you will face a fifth-degree felony. If the child was seriously injured and this is your second DUI with children in the car then you will be charged with a fourth degree felony. Keep in mind that these charges listed are ONLY for the child endangerment offenses and do not include the mandatory penalties available to judges under Ohio’s DUI/OVI statutes.  Child endangerment and DUI are triggers for rigorous enforcement.

Given the harsh penalties and societal hatred of the crimes of child endangerment and DUI, you need an attorney who will aggressively take on the underlying DUI charge.  If the government is unable to prove a violation of the DUI law, then the child endangering case is also unsustainable.  Learn more about how we can defend your child endangerment and DUI charges below.

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.”

Ohio Child Endangerment and DUI information and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Case Law Update: OVI Urine Sample

November 25th, 2013

OVI urine sample

Under Ohio law, an OVI urine sample must be refrigerated while not in transit or under examination.  In State v. Schneider, 2013-Ohio-4789, the First District Court of Appeals was asked to define what “in transit” means.

At the suppression hearing, defense counsel argued that the state had failed to establish that the OVI urine sample had been refrigerated while it was not under examination or in transit as required by Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F). Defense counsel pointed to the evidence that the trooper had not refrigerated the specimen between its collection at 3:15 a.m., and its mailing at 10:00 p.m., a period of 18 hours and 45 minutes. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress the results of the alcohol analysis on Schneider’s urine specimen. The prosecutor appealed arguing that the trial court erred by suppressing the urine-test results.

Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F), provides: “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” The regulation does not define “in transit” or set forth any time limitation for an OVI urine sample to be in transit, or to be unrefrigerated, for that matter. In general, Ohio courts agree that an OVI urine sample or blood specimen is “in transit” for purposes of Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F) for at least the time that it is placed in the mail until the time that it is received by the testing facility, even if the mailing process itself takes several days. For example, in State v. Hurst, 4th Dist. Washington No. 08CA43, 2009- Ohio-3127, the Fourth Appellate District rejected the appellant’s argument that the police should not have mailed an OVI urine sample on a Friday, thereby causing the OVI urine sample to go unrefrigerated until the crime lab received it the following Monday. See State v. Cook, 82 Ohio App.3d 619, 612 N.E.2d 1272 (12th Dist.1992) (OVI urine sample was “in transit” for the three-day period from the time it was mailed until the lab received it); State v. Cook, 5th Dist. Stark No. CA-8708, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 4022 (Aug. 3, 1992) (blood specimen was “in transit” for the three days it was in the mail). In one instance, a court held that the state had substantially complied with the regulation where an OVI urine sample was unrefrigerated for the seven and one-half days that it was in the mail. See State v. Partin, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2010-04-040, 2011-Ohio-794. In another case, State v. Mullins, 4th Dist. Ross No. 12CA3350, 2013-Ohio-2688, the state limited itself to a narrow definition of the term when it stipulated that the defendant’s urine sample “was not placed in the mail (transit)” until 12 hours had passed from the time that the sample had been taken.

In State v. Plummer, 22 Ohio St.3d 292, 294, 490 N.E.2d 902 (1986), the Ohio Supreme Court recognized that strict compliance with DOH regulations “is not always realistically or humanly possible.” The court said that “there is leeway for substantial, though not literal, compliance with such regulations.” Id. The court later limited the Plummer substantial-compliance standard to excusing errors that are “clearly de minimis,” or that are “minor procedural deviations.” See Burnside at ¶ 34.  In this case, the trial court determined that Schneider’s OVI urine sample “was not in transit as long as the officer is holding it.”

The First District reversed holding that Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F) contains no such limiting language. Nor does the regulation limit the term “in transit” to mean “in the mail.” They stated, in pertinent part,

We do not believe that the term “in transit” as used in Ohio Adm.Code 3701- 53-05(F) is so narrow as to include only the time that a blood or urine specimen is in the mail. Certainly the regulation contemplates other modes of transportation, as well as reasonable periods of time that a specimen is unrefrigerated. To read the term “in transit” to mean “in the mail” would not have allowed for the trooper to transport the unrefrigerated specimen from the Cincinnati district to his patrol post, or even from his post to the post office. Moreover, it is undisputed that a specimen is generally not refrigerated while in the mail; thus, the delay in mailing Schneider’s specimen was inconsequential, and a minor deviation from the requirements of the regulation.  Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred by finding that the state did not demonstrate substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05(F). Moreover, because the trial court determined that Schneider had suffered no prejudice as a result of the lack of strict compliance, we hold that the trial court erred by suppressing the results of the urine-alcohol testing.

It would appear that, without a showing of prejudice, the police will be given no restrictions under the Ohio Administrative Code.  Like in other OVI cases, the language of the statute is not strictly construed against the state, but read in an expansive way to allow more convictions under the law.

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.”

 Find information on OVI urine sample and scientific evidence on this blog, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville