Tag: ohio ovi lawyer

Arrested for OVI? Should You Blow?

00Breath Testing, Illegal Police StopsTags: , , , , , , , , ,

should i blowWhen you are stopped on suspicion of DUI the question becomes – “Should I Blow?” Unfortunately, the answer is “maybe” and involves a very complicated investigation of the facts of your case and your personal history. You should NEVER refuse the test without understanding how a refusal would affect YOU. No attorney can know all of the circumstances of your arrest and your personal history, always ask to speak to an attorney when making this decision.

Can you answer “TRUE” to ALL of the following questions? If so, you can politely DECLINE any police test(s) of your blood, breath, or urine with minimum impact. Be prepared and know your rights.

  • I am an Ohio license holder, 21 years or older; AND
  • I was not involved in an accident involving possible death or to serious injury to ANYBODY, even members of my family, pedestrians or passengers; AND
  • I do not have a commercial driver’s license (CDL); AND
  • No matter where I currently have a license to drive, I have hadno prior drunk driving convictionsor deferred pleas for DUI in ANY state within 6 years (from the date of conviction until now).

Refusing a chemical test can result in harsh penalties which includes a one-year license suspension and a longer period of time before you can get driving privileges.   Your attorney can fight to get this reduced. In some courts your refusal may be held strictly against you and in others you may be able to get a reduced suspension despite your refusal. In State v. Hill, 2009-Ohio-2468, the Appellate Court upheld the right of a trial court to enhance a penalty based on a refusal to take the chemical test. In most circumstances, a refusal to take a chemical test will result in a longer hard-time suspension (30 days rather than 15 days without any driving privileges). [see the Automatic License Suspension section of this blog]. You should also engage in an honest assessment of your alcohol consumption. If you risk testing over Ohio’s “super-OVI” threshold (over a .17% BAC) you may do harm by taking the test. Take these factors into account when making your decision to blow or not to blow.

Should I blow, Now you know! Any criminal defense attorney would rather have less evidence against you rather than more, but giving blanket advice to refuse the chemical test is a mistake. Be prepared to make the best decision for you. You can also plan ahead by storing my contact information in your smart phone: (937)776-2671.

traffic fatalities

New Restrictions For Juvenile Drivers In Ohio Begins Today

00DUI Under 21/Juvenile, Ohio Traffic LawTags: , , , , , , ,

Beginning July 1, 2015, juvenile drivers issued a probationary license will face restrictions on when they can drive and how many passengers are allowed in the car while driving based on experience instead of age. This change is a result of Ohio’s Drive Toward a Safer Ohio Initiative and is an effort to increase the level of experience for Ohio’s young drivers.

“The change in driving times and the passenger restrictions during the first 12 months of driving allows Ohio’s young motorists to gain more experience on the road, while reducing their risks,” said Karhlton Moore, Executive Director of the Office of Criminal Justice Services. “This will help them become safer drivers.”

Whether these measures will actually work is of little concern to Ohio lawmakers as juvenile drivers make up only 5 percent of all drivers. The legislature did make a change in the law that will allow teen drivers to drive past 10 p.m. and would not require an additional six months with a parent or guardian if the juvenile driver has a moving violation.

Probationary drivers under the age of 18 will have the following restrictions during the first 12 months with a license:

  • No driving between midnight and 6 a.m., unless that driver is accompanied by a parent or a guardian. Those with valid documentation from work, school or church allowing for travel for activities between these hours are exempt;
  • No driving with more than one non-family member in the car;
  • All passengers must wear safety belts at all times; and
  • No use of mobile communication while driving.

For more information on laws affecting juvenile drivers in Ohio, please contact us at (937) 318-1384.

Keywords: Juvenile drivers, ohio dui attorney, ohio ovi attorney, ohio dui lawyer, ohio ovi lawyer

Driving Is A Right – Not A Privilege!

00DUI & Driving Privileges, Ohio BMV IssuesTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Driving Is A Right – Not A Privilege!

driving is a rightHave you ever been told that “driving is a privilege?” Bah! This author argues that case law needs to be expanded to include “driving” as a fundamental right under the First Amendment’s Freedom of Assembly. Thus, the analysis should be under the substantive due process analysis not simply under the procedural due process analysis.

Because the human rights of freedom of movement, right to earn a living and the right to peaceably assemble are only capable of being maintained with a valid driver’s license, the Court should require a more rigorous standard before depriving someone of this basic right. Driving is a right because the right to drive is a fundamental right that is deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Why is it important to establish driving as a fundamental right? Where the right is not a fundamental right, the court applies a rational basis test: if the violation of the right can be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, then the law is held valid. If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is justified by a compelling state interest, and whether the law is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

I base this claim on cases decided in the United States Supreme Court. DUI case law analysis at the United States Supreme Court provides that driving is not “just” a privilege as alleged and assumed by most Ohioans. You may have heard the expression that a driver’s license is “a privilege — not a right”, and thus there were few effective remedies available to a driver who wished to contest a suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court changed that in Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971), recognizing that a license’s “continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood”. Because of their value, then, they “are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment”. The Court premised its opinion on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protections that neither the State or Federal government can deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Without this decision it is likely that the police would confiscate your license without any recourse in or appeal. See also, Mackey v. Montrym (1979) 443 U.S. 1, involving a license suspension for refusing to submit to a DUI breath test. But they need to go further.

To understand why driving is a right in light of DUI case law, it is important to understand how the United States Supreme Court analyzes due process issues. “The Supreme Court has identified two distinct categories of fundamental liberties. The first category includes most of the liberties expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Through a process known as “selective incorporation,” the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar states from denying their residents the most important freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution. Only the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment right against involuntary quartering of soldiers, and the Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury have not been made applicable to the states. Because these rights remain inapplicable to state governments, the Supreme Court is said to have “selectively incorporated” the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause.

The second category of fundamental liberties includes those liberties that are not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights but which are nonetheless deemed essential to the concepts of freedom and equality in a democratic society. These unenumerated liberties are derived from Supreme Court precedents, common law, moral philosophy, and deeply rooted traditions of U.S. Legal History. The word liberty cannot be defined by a definitive list of rights, the Supreme Court has stressed. Instead, it must be viewed as a rational continuum of freedom through which every facet of human behavior is safeguarded from Arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints. In this light, the Supreme Court has observed, the Due Process Clause protects abstract liberty interests, including the right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-dignity, and self-determination. Id. Let’s get driving, freedom of movement and freedom of assembly to be included as a fundamental liberty.

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 info on the argument that driving is a right not a privilege, check these city-specific sites at the following links:

Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield,Kettering,Vandalia,XeniaMiamisburg,Huber HeightsSpringboroOakwood,Beavercreek, Centerville

Ohio OVI Enforcement Statistics Year-To-Date

00Ohio DUI DefenseTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Ohio State Highway Patrol has released year-to-date statistics on its Ohio OVI Enforcement.  2014 saw 2,100 arrests for OVI.  There was an increase in 2015 to 2,367 arrests.  Greene County saw arrests jump from 25 in 2014 to 47 this year. Montgomery County jumped from 58 arrests in 2014 to 72 this year. In Clark County the OSP arrested 26 people by this time in 2014 and 32 so far this year.

2015 looks like a bad year to forget to wear your seatbelt with a huge jump of 8,278 arrest vs 6,796 last year. Drug arrests are also significantly up again in 2015 with 1,275 arrested compared to 1,009 last year.  Interestingly the OSP seems to be doing fewer motorists assists. They have done 29,725 motorists assist so far in 2015 while having done 44,131 by this same point in 2014.

ohio ovi The great news from the statistics is that Ohio roadways continue to be very safe compared to any point in our history.  Fatal crashes have increased by only one over this point last year.  Keep up the good driving, always designate a sober driver, don’t text and drive and make Ohio a great place to live.

Ohio 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 OVI 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 info on Ohio OVI enforcement, check these city-specific sites at the following links:

Fairborn,Dayton,Springfield,Kettering,Vandalia,XeniaMiamisburg,Huber HeightsSpringboroOakwood,Beavercreek, Centerville

Policing For Profit Approved By Ohio Supreme Court

00DUI Case LawTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

policing for profitIf you were hoping that the Ohio Supreme Court would curtail a city’s ability to implement policing for profit, you would be disappointed.  Last week, in Walker v. Toledo, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5461, a divided Supreme Court ruled that cities in Ohio have complete freedom to set up tribunals that do away with due process protections for motorists accused by a machine.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy held specifically that,

Municipalities have home-rule authority under Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII,to impose civil liability on traffic violators through an administrativeenforcement system—Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 and R.C.1901.20 do not endow municipal courts with exclusive authority overtraffic-ordinance violations—Municipalities have home-rule authority toestablish administrative proceedings, including administrative hearings,in furtherance of traffic ordinances, that must be exhausted beforeoffenders or the municipality can pursue judicial remedies.

Without permission from the General Assembly, in 2008 Toledo allowed Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia to set up shop and issue $120 traffic tickets in the city’s name (what we call policing for profit). Vehicle owners could only contest these fines by attending an administrative hearing set up by Toledo. Bradley Walker filed a challenge to his citation on the grounds that the state constitution gives only the legislature the power to set up judicial bodies.

The high court majority did not buy that reasoning and instead agreed with Redflex that cities set up quasi-judicial taxicab review boards without statutory authority, so automated ticketing tribunals should be allowed as well. The court majority insisted the 2008 Mendenhall v. Akron case allowing cities to set up camera programs on their own authority includes permission to set up judicial panels (view decision).

“The reality of municipal civil enforcement of ordinances does not involve regulating the jurisdiction of courts,” Justice Sharon L. Kennedy wrote for the majority. “As we made clear in Mendenhall, civil enforcement of municipal ordinances complements the work of the courts. It does not restrict it… We agree with Redflex’s proposition that municipalities have home-rule authority to establish presuit civil administrative proceedings, including administrative hearings, on civil liability for traffic-law violations.”

The three dissenting justices countered that it is absurd to say that a city council has the power to restrict the jurisdiction of the municipal court by taking away the right to hear traffic camera cases and hand it to a hearing officer. Under state law, the municipal court has jurisdiction over “any ordinance” within its territory, except parking tickets. The dissenting justices accused their colleagues of playing word games.

“It is evident under this statute that the General Assembly has vested the municipal court with jurisdiction over the violation of any ordinance generally and any misdemeanor specifically, other than parking violations,” Justice William M. O’Neill. “The term ‘any ordinance’ does not need interpreting. It is clear on its face. Other than the specifically mentioned parking violation ordinances, ‘any ordinance’ covers ‘any ordinance,’ which includes Toledo Municipal Code 313.12. This is the only logical interpretation of this statute.”

This is a significant policing for profit decision, because a bill effectively banning red-light and speed cameras sits on Gov. Kasich’s desk for approval.  If vetoed, it looks like Ohio red-light and speed cameras will be here to stay for a long, long time despite the will of the people.

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 info on policing for profit, check these city-specific sites at the following links:

Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering,Vandalia,Xenia,Miamisburg, Huber Heights,Springboro,Oakwood,Beavercreek, Centerville