Tag Archives: Ohio Supreme Court

DUI Case Law Update: State v. Ilg

DUI case law update: State v. Ilg, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-4258

DUI case lawFor 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. . .]

Ohio DUI Law R.C 4511.19(A)(2) “a codified dilema”

ohio dui law

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 Motion To Suppress Is Vital In An Ohio DUI Case

motion to suppressIn State v. French, 72 Ohio St. 3d 446, 1995-Ohio-32, 646 N.E. 2d 887 (1995), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a pretrial motion to suppress is the only way to challenge the admissibility of a chemical test.  If not filed, the results will be automatically admissible at trial.  The prosecuting attorney will not need to lay a foundation and any objection by the defense as to their admission will be overruled by the judge.  This makes choosing an [Read the full post. . .]

The Ohio OVI Breath Test – How To Fight And Win

OVI breath testYou may think that any person who takes an OVI breath test and blows above Ohio’s .08 legal limit is guilty of OVI.  This is not the case.

Ohio employs a device called the Intoxilyzer 8000.  This device has many problems in its operation.  In fact, after a lengthy hearing on the Intoxilyzer 8000, a judge in Marietta ruled that the machine was not reliable [Story HERE].  Prosecutors hide behind a 1984 Ohio Supreme Court decision that said because [Read the full post. . .]

Ohio Supreme Court Rules on DUI Motion To Suppress Issue

DUI Motion To Suppress

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a DUI Motion to Suppress issue in State v. Codeluppi, 2012-Ohio-5812.

In August of 2011, Officer Ryan M. Young of the North Ridgeville Police Department stopped Ms. Codeluppi on Lorain Road for driving 53 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone.  When Officer Young walked to the driver’s window of Ms. Codeluppi’s car, he smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car. Following an investigation and administration of standardized [Read the full post. . .]