Tag: Police

OVI Checkpoints: The Reason To Get Rid Of Checkpoints & Cameras

00DUI Checkpoints, Illegal Police StopsTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

OVI Checkpoints - Traffic Why we drive the way we do.The Reason to Get Rid of OVI Checkpoints & Cameras?  Glad You Asked.

In his book Why People Obey The Law, legal scholar Tom Tyler argues that compliance with the law has less to do with deterrence (fear of penalty) than with the rational decision that complying with the law is in a person’s self-interest.  More important to their compliance is the decision that following the law is the right thing to do.  Having the biggest impact on their perception of the law is the belief in the legitimacy of the authority.  “People who go to traffic court are less concerned with the outcome – even when it is a costly ticket or fine – than with the fairness of the process.” Vanderbilt, Tom. Traffic: why we drive the way we do (and what it says about us), 2008, pp 235.  Thus the societal norm that driving within the speed limit and driving without being impaired, is an agreed upon social construct and is enforced best by our agreement that violating these laws is dangerous and deserving of punishment.

We can conclude from the evidence above that when there is less respect for the law and/or the process is deemed to be unfair the most important factor in compliance is compromised.  Less effective governance means the law are less effective, which means that people are less likely to follow them.  How do we know this?  The answer lies in whether or not the enforcement of the law is perceived as corrupt.  According to indices compiled by the anti corruption watchdog Transparency International, the higher a country (or law) ranks on the corruption index the less interested in following the law.  “Lode Vereeck, a Belgian economist at Hasselt University, has noted that in survey after survey of people’s attitudes toward traffic regulations, Belgians seem resistant; they’re more hostile than their neighbors to things like seat belt laws, lower speed limits, and drunk-driving laws” (thus more likely to drink before driving). Vanderbilt, Id.  Compared to the Netherlands (Belgiums nearest neighbor and best basis of comparison) the Belgians see their laws as more corrupt, leading to less adherence to the law and more traffic fatalities.  The nations that rank as the least corrupt – such countries as Finland, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden and Singapore – are the safest places in the world to drive.  The lesson we draw from the research is that wealth and enforcement affect traffic fatalities less than real or perceived corruption.

The premise of my argument herein is that OVI checkpoint and speed/red-light cameras are perceived as corrupt by the vast majority of citizens.  Our reliance on speed cameras and the attendant unfairness of the enforcement lessens the citizens adherence to the law.  The perceived unfairness of a sobriety checkpoint lessens and diminishes the drunk driving law.  The research suggests that following the law because it is fair and the right thing to do are more important than checkpoints and cameras.  Which raises the question to law enforcement and to the political elite.  If fairness is diminished at the cost of lives, are you doing a disservice by continuing the “corrupt” practices.  At some level you are making the decision between money for your department/city over the potential loss of life due to possible disrespect for the law.  I would argue (anecdotally) that respect for all law enforcement is diminished when they are perceived to be sanctioning unfair enforcement.  The courts are lowered in esteem when they are seen as unfair or “rigged” against the average citizen.

The reason that I put forth this argument is because I have spent my life dedicated to our system of justice.  I believe in our courts and in (the overwhelming majority of)  law enforcement officials.  I cannot go by silently and see the things I gave my life to broken.  I do not want our children to grow up in a world where the rule of law is scoffed at as a naive concept.  If my children (or yours) go into law enforcement I do not want their lives put in danger because they are seen as “other” rather than the agents of service and protection.  This issues goes to the very core of what we are and what we want our communities to be.  We can and should do better because “we are all in this together.”

Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (1-888-769-5263). For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting follow DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and you can access updates by becoming a fan of Dayton DUI/OVI Defense.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@CharlesRowland.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Ohio OVI Defense Attorney Quote of the Week

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

Supreme Court Justice Byron White previously s...

United States Supreme Court Justice Byron White in the landmark case of United States vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)

“Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convictingthe innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.”

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Dayton and throughout the Miami Valley.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter@DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebookwww.facebook.com/daytondui and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Related articles

Dayton Adopts Mobile (Hidden?) Speed Cameras

00Ohio Traffic Law, SpeedingTags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Dayton Police Department has taken what some argued was an inevitable step to increase revenue.  They have deployed a mobile speed camera inside a Ford Escape which they will move around the city to catch speeders unawares.  The camera technology is the same used by stationary units.  According to WDTN, “[w]hen a driver exceeds the set speed, the cameras snap three photos of the vehicle. The pictures and a citation will then be sent to the vehicle owner about a week after the offense.”  Dayton Police Detective Carol Johnson said she is hopeful the mobile unit will slow drivers down. “They might be more cognizant of their driving or not speed at all just because the mobile unit might pop up,” said Johnson. Warnings will be given until the end of March.  Starting April, 1 (Fool’s Day) the tickets will cost drivers $85.00 for each violation.  If you find yourself charged with a violation of mobile (hidden) speed cameras, contact Dayton criminal defense attorney Charles M. Rowland II at (937)318-1384 for a free consultation.  You can also join the fight against red-light and speed cameras at his facebook page, www.facebook.com/daytondui.

Yellow Springs Mayor’s Court

00Greene County, Xenia DUI AttorneyTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Twice a month David Foubert, Mayor of Yellow Springs, holds court.

The Yellow Springs Mayor’s Court hears misdemeanor offenses that occur in the jurisdiction of the Yellow Springs Police Department.  The Yellow Springs Mayor’s Court is held in the Byron Community Center, located at 100 Dayton Street just adjacent to downtown Yellow Springs.  The Byron Community Center also houses the Yellow Springs Police Department, which can be reached at: Non-Emergency: (937) 767-7206 or at dispatch@yso.com. For inquiries regarding court appearances, fine and costs amounts, court procedures and other court matters, you may call the Clerk of Court’s office at (937) 767-3400.  If you wish, you may remove your case from the Yellow Springs Mayor’s Court to the jurisdiction of the Xenia Municipal Court located at 101 N. Detroit St., Xenia, Ohio.  Removal is a decision that should be made only after a complete consultation with an attorney familiar with the Yellow Springs Mayor’s Court and the Xenia Municipal Court.

If you find yourself arrested for a DUI (drunk driving) offense in the jurisdiction of the Yellow Springs Mayor’s Court, contact Yellow Springs DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II at (937) 318-1384.  Charles Rowland served as the acting city Prosecutor in Xenia and has appeared regularly in the Yellow Springs Mayor’s court for over fifteen years.  If you are arrested on a criminal offense, contact Yellow Springs criminal attorney Mark Babb at (937) 879-9542.  Mr. Babb is a resident of Yellow Springs and a passionate advocate for his clients.