Posts Tagged ‘OVI lawyer’

Determining Probable Cause For An OVI Offense

August 25th, 2014

probable causeA warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause in order to be constitutionally valid. State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122, 67 Ohio Op.2d 140, 311 N.E.2d 16 (1974).  In order to make a finding that probable (more likely than not) cause existed the court must look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest. State v. Miller,  117 Ohio App.3d 750, 691 N.E.2d 703 (11th Dist. Court of Appeals 1997), State v. Brandenburg, 41 Ohio App.3d 109, 534 N.E.2d 906 (2nd Dist. Court of Appeals, Montgomery County 1987). “[B]ecause of the mosaic which is analyzed for a …probable cause inquiry is multi-faceted, ‘one determination is seldom useful precedent for another.’” State v. Anez, 108 Ohio Misc.2d 18, 27, 738 N.E.2d 491 (2000) citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 698, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663, (1996) quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 280, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983).

In an OVI case filed pursuant to O.R.C. 4511.19, the court must consider the following in making a determination:

  1. whether at the moment of arrest;
  2. the police had sufficient information
  3. derived from a reasonably trustworthy source of the facts and circumstances
  4. sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe
  5. that the suspect was driving under the influence

These factors are set forth at State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St. 3d 421, 427, 2000-Ohio-212, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000), superseded by statute, State v. Bozcar, 2007-Ohio-1251, 113 Ohio St.3d 148, 863 N.E.2d 155 (2008) citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225 (1964); State v. Timson, 38 Ohio St.2d 122, 127, 311 N.E.2d 16 (1974).  It is clear from these cases that probable cause is a high standard that the government must meet in order to prosecute an OVI offense.

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.”

To learn more about probable cause contact me, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

A Motion To Suppress Is Vital In An Ohio DUI Case

August 13th, 2014

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 experienced DUI attorney vital to your case as they will know what to challenge in a pretrial suppression motion.

A motion to suppress is one of the most important tools in a DUI attorney’s arsenal. It’s purpose is to render “the state’s proof … so weak in its entirety that any reasonable possibility of effective prosecution has been destroyed.” State v. Davidson, 17 Ohio St.3d 132, 135, 477 N.E.2d 1141 (1985). If successful, a motion will likely end the case in favor of the defendant.

The motion is the defendant’s challenge to crucial aspects of the State’s case, which may include challenges to:

  • the reason for the initial police contact;
  • the reason for asking the defendant to exit the car;
  • the reason for administering the standardized field sobriety tests;
  • the administration of the field sobriety tests;
  • the 20 minute observation period before the chemical test;
  • the administration and time frame of the chemical test; and
  • the results of the chemical test.

Ancillary benefits of a motion to suppress include the ability to see and hear the officer testify about the arrest. The officer may be an exceptionally good or bad witness. The state may or may not choose to pursue certain aspects of the case based on the testimony. Further, the motion hearing may prove to be a valuable discovery tool. From a purely strategic standpoint, a motion to suppress demonstrates to the State that you are committed to your client’s position and will do whatever it takes to prevent a DUI conviction.

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.”

For more information about a motion to suppress contact me, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Methods for Obtaining A Test Under Ohio’s Implied Consent Law

July 28th, 2014

 

implied consent law

 

When you drive on Ohio’s roadways you are assumed to have consented to a search of your blood, breath, plasma or urine if you are arrested pursuant to the Ohio Drunk Driving statute, R.C. 4511.19(A) or R.C. 4511.19(B). Ohio Revised Code 4511.191(A)(2) is Ohio’s Implied Consent Law. It states, in pertinent part,

 

“Any person who operates a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley upon a highway or any public or private property used by the public for vehicular travel or parking within this state or who is in physical control of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test or tests of the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine to determine the alcohol, drug of abuse, controlled substance, metabolite of a controlled substance, or combination content of the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine if arrested for a violation of division (A) or (B) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, section 4511.194 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, or a municipal OVI ordinance.”

 

The first of three methods officer’s use to obtain a test is submission by a defendant. This is a typical scenario wherein a person is observed driving and arrested for OVI. At the station the officer reads the warnings on the SR-2255 form and requests that the defendant take a chemical test. The statutory authority for this method of obtaining a test is set forth at R.C. 4511.19(A)(2). It is necessary that a defendant be placed under arrest prior to the officer’s request to submit.

 

Section 4511.191(A)(4) applies the implied consent statute to persons who are dead or unconscious at the time a blood breath or urine sample is requested. It states,

 

“Any person who is dead or unconscious, or who otherwise is in a condition rendering the person incapable of refusal, shall be deemed to have consented as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, and the test or tests may be administered, subject to sections 313.12 to 313.16 of the Revised Code.”

 

Issues over this method of obtaining a test are often invoked in serious accident cases. Questions of fact about whether the person was semi-conscious, fully conscious or able to give consent are common. Due to the unusual circumstances of this type of case, an arrest is not necessary prior to the chemical test.

 

The third method for obtaining a chemical test under the implied consent provisions of Ohio law is the controversial forced blood draw.  Ohio adopted a “no refusal” forced blood draw statue at R.C. 4511.191, which states, “if the person refuses to take a chemical test the officer may employ whatever reasonable means are necessary to ensure that the person submits to a chemical test of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.” [emphasis added]. Obviously, the McNeeley decision places this law in jeopardy.  When a person refuses to voluntarily submit to a chemical test for BAC, if time permits, a warrant should be obtained.  In State v. Hollis, 2013-Ohio-2586, the Fifth Appellate District was faced with an appeal of a decision from the Richland County Common Pleas Court. The case was the first forced blood draw decision following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v. McNeeley, which held “that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.  The decision of the court used the previous rules for exigent circumstancesas set forth in Schmerber v. California and does not address or rely upon the McNeeley ruling.  Instead, the court (relying on Schmerber) finds that exigent circumstances existed justifying the blood draw. Defendant was constructively arrested at the hospital after wrecking his car and likely being under the influence. The blood draw at the hospital was reasonable and with exigent circumstances. The court credits that it would have taken “hours” to get a warrant.

 

 

 

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.”

To learn more about Ohio’s Implied Consent law contact me, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

 

 

 

Tell Your Ohio OVI Attorney That You Are ADD/ADHD

July 15th, 2014

OVI attorneyIf you are afflicted with adult ADD/ADHD make sure to raise the issue with your OVI Attorney.

To be diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, a person has to demonstrate an inability to complete divided-attention testing.  In 2009, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 9.5 percent of children in the United States had ADHD, up from the previous survey.  The trend has not gone unnoticed amongst the insurance industry who reported at the 162 annual meeting of theAmerican Psychiatric Association in May 2009 that:

  • 28 percent of adult drivers with ADHD reported receiving a citation withing the prior twelve months.
  • 34 percent reported being in an auto collision.
  • 44 percent reported either a citation or a collision.

The standardized field sobriety tests are divided-attention tests.  Given these statistics, is there any doubt that persons with ADD/ADHD have been improperly categorized by law enforcement after the administration of the standardized field sobriety tests.  If it is impossible for a person to complete a divided attention test in a non-stressed clinical environment, how much more difficult would that test be on the roadside under the threat of incarceration.

Officers are not trained to look for extraneous reasons that could account for a person’s failure of their divided-attention tests and no special training is provided to look for signs of ADD/ADHD.  The result is that many officers note the failures as clues of impairment.  The clues are used in determining probable cause for arrest and innocent people are accused of drunk driving. See Citron, MD, JD Applying the Scientific Method in DUI Cases as cited inUnderstanding DUI Scientific Evidence, 2011 Ed., Aspatore.  Make sure you talk to your attorney about this and any other medical condition that you suffer from as this may aid in your defense.

Dayton OVI AttorneyCharles 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 OVI attorney 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 an OVI attorney 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.” 

To learn more about OVI attorney Charles M. Rowland  check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgHuber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Are You Fat? Old? A Woman? Then The DUI Laws Are Biased Against You

June 5th, 2014

DUI lawsDid you know that the DUI laws are inherently biased against most of us?

Alcohol loves water and will move into spaces where water is the most prevalent.  Fatty portions of the body have a low water content and absorb little of the alcohol, while muscular portions of the body have a high water content and absorb much alcohol.  As it is carried to all parts of the body by the blood, the alcohol distributes itself in proportion to the water content of the various parts of the body.  It is the presumed relationship between the amount of alcohol in the blood at a given time and the amount of alcohol which will be present in the breath which is it he basis for the theory that we can test breath and infer a BAC result.

So we can conclude that the fatter the person, the more alcohol will remain in the bloodstream which will result in a higher BAC result.  The better a person’s physical fitness level, the more alcohol will be taken up by the rest of the body, the less which will be left in the blood, which results in a lower BAC.  This may upset the traditional assumption that the bigger the person (i.e. the size of the container) the more alcohol that the person can consume and the lower the BAC.  The “lean” to “fat” ratio, however, is an important factor.

Women have, on average, a higher percentage of body fat.  Older people have, on average, a higher percentage of body fat.  Does this mean that the breath tests are biased against older people and women.  Based on the science the answer is, yes!  The higher the percentage of body fat, the more alcohol will stay in the bloodstream, the higher the BAC which will result from the alcohol consumed, as opposed to the same amount consumed by a lean, muscular person of the same weight.  Do the DUI laws take this into account – NO! It is up to your attorney to provide the jury with a context to understand how applying the law is unfair to you.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio and fighting for fairness in the DUI laws and their application.  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 on Ohio DUI laws check these city-specific sites at the following links:
FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville