Posts Tagged ‘springboro dui’

Springboro DUI? What To Expect On A First Offense

May 7th, 2014

Springboro DUISpringboro DUI? This article is designed to help you understand what to expect if you are charged with a DUI in the Springboro Mayor’s Court.

first offense DUI is defined at O.R.C. 4511.19 as a DUI with no priors within 6 years.  A first offense DUI can be charged in three ways.  The first charge is caused by testing over the legal limit of .08% B.A.C. (example O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d)).  These types of offenses are also referred to as “per se”  violations.  A second way to be charged is for violating the high-tier provision of Ohio’s DUI law.  Ohio has also created a per se “high-tier” limit of .17% BrAC, sometimes referred to as a SUPER-OVI.  The per se high-tier limits for a first offense DUI are set forth at O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)

  • (f) The person has a concentration of seventeen-hundredths of one per cent or more by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s whole blood.
  • (g) The person has a concentration of two hundred four-thousandths of one per cent or more by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s blood serum or plasma.
  • (h) The person has a concentration of seventeen-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of the person’s breath.
  • (i) The person has a concentration of two hundred thirty-eight-thousandths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of the person’s urine.

Appreciable Impairment Offenses:  If you refuse to take a chemical test, the State will still be able to prove you guilty of a first offense DUI if they prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you  operated a motor vehicle in Ohio after having consumed some alcohol, drugs of abuse, or a combination of the two and their ability to operate the motor vehicle was appreciably impaired.  How does a jury determine “under the influence?”  The following is an excerpt from the Ohio Jury Instructions:

“Under the influence” means that the defendant consumed some (alcohol) (drug of abuse) (combination of alcohol and a drug of abuse), whether mild or potent, in such a quantity, whether small or great, that it adversely affected and noticeably impaired the defendant’s actions, reaction, or mental processes under the circumstances then existing and deprived the defendant of that clearness of intellect and control of himself/herself which he/she would otherwise have possessed. The question is not how much (alcohol) (drug of abuse) (alcohol and a drug of abuse) would affect an ordinary person.

The question is what effect did any (alcohol) (drug of abuse) (alcohol and a drug of abuse), consumed by the defendant, have on him/her at the time and place involved. If the consumption of (alcohol) (drug of abuse) (alcohol and a drug of abuse) so affected the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the defendant so as to impair, to a noticeable degree, his/her ability to operate the vehicle, then the defendant was under the influence. The Ohio jury Instruction cites language from State v. Hardy (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 89, 57 O.O.2d 284, 276 N.E.2d 247; and State v. Steele (1952), 95 Ohio App. 107, 52 O.O. 488, 117 N.E.2d 617.

The “appreciable impairment offense” is set forth at Ohio Revised Code 4511.19(A)(1)(a) which states,

(A)(1) No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.

At DaytonDUI we refer to the (A)(1)(a), appreciable impairment offense as the OTIS standard, derived from the popular OTIS character featured on the classic Andy Griffith program.  OTIS was the stereotypical town drunk who often found himself in the Mayberry jail.  OTIS was obviously intoxicated based on how he looked, walked, acted and talked.  Viewers had no doubt that he was intoxicated.  Law enforcement will  attempt to prove impairment with the same evidence we use to judge OTIS.

Why Was I Charged With Two DUI Offenses?  Often, the arresting law enforcement officer will charge both the per seand appreciable impairment cases, knowing that you cannot be convicted of both.  In essence, the officer is hedging his bets, hoping that if your test is found to be faulty you can still be found guilty of being impaired.  At your trial or sentencing hearing, your conviction will either be for the per se or appreciable impairment charge.  Your DUI attorney will help you understand the pros and cons of any plea agreement and empower you to make choices that will benefit you on a short-term and long-term basis.  Choosing the best DUI attorney for your case is the most important decision that you can make and should not be rushed or taken lightly.

First Offense DUI Felony Offenses: If your first offense DUI involves the death or serious physical harm to another, you may face felony charges.  Aggravated Vehicular Homicide is a crime that results from the death of another caused by the defendant’s operating a vehicle while impaired (a violation of R.C. 4511.19)  or while driving negligently or recklessly.  The statute  encompasses driving an automobile recklessly or negligently (called Vehicular homicide) whether or not alcohol played a part in the death.  Aggravated Vehicular Assault is the crime of causing serious physical harm to a person while violating Ohio’s drunk driving statute.

A First Offense DUI Based On Drug Use:  You can also be charged with a per se offense based on the concentration of illicit drugs in your system.  To be convicted of a per se offense, the state must prove that a person operated a motor vehicle in Ohio and that at the time of operation, the person had a prohibited concentration of alcohol or drugs in their blood, breath or urine.  Your DUI attorney will devise defenses particular to the specific evidential test you took.  The admissibility of the results of these tests are dependant upon the arresting agency’s and testing organization’s compliance with the rules of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) as adopted and approved by the Ohio Department of Health.  At DaytonDUI, we know how to defend a breath test case and employ sophisticated scientific defenses to win your DUI case.  An oft’ quoted maxim that you should know is, “An arrest is not a conviction.”

First Offense DUI Penalties:  The following penalties are reserved for first offense DUI offenders.  Obviously, it is in your interests to hire counsel who can assess your case and provide you with an honest assessment of your case.  Be sure to discuss not only the mitigating factors that your attorney should know, but the not-so-good aspects of your case.  Judges have discretion to look at many factors in fashioning a remedy and your attorney should be able to give you an idea of how to approach your case so as to minimize any potential penalties.  Here are the range of possible penalties for a first offense DUI.

  • Jail – 3 Days Minimum up to 6 Months or,
  • Driver Intervention Program – For 3 Days
  • Jail – 6 Days (If Blood Alcohol Concentration .17 or Above)
  • License Suspension – From 6 Months to 3 Years
  • Reinstatement Fee – $475.00
  • Fine – From $375 to $1,075

Party Plates (Ohio’s Scarlet Letter)

When are yellow DUI plates required?  If you are convicted of OVI in Ohio, yellow “restricted plates” are required in certain circumstances.

  • If you are convicted of OVI as a first offense, the judge has discretion to order restricted plates as a condition of granting you limited driving privileges.
  • If you are placed under and administrative license suspension, a judge has discretion to order restricted plates as a condition of granting limited driving privileges.

Is an Interlock Ignition Device Mandatory?

The device is not mandatory on a first offense Springboro DUI.  Judges have discretion to require the ignition interlock device on first offenses, but on subsequent offenses the IID is mandatory.  It is important to speak with an experienced DUI attorney who is familiar with the Court/judge presiding over your case to get an idea of whether or not you will likely receive an ignition interlock device on a first offense.  Be sure to talk with your attorney about aggravating factors in your case.  Be aware that MADD is pushing for the requirement that all first-time DUI offenders must use an ignition interlock device in order to get the car to start.  MADD is seeking to implement this mandate in the same way it coerced the states’ into adoption of a .08 alcohol standard, which is to tie the ignition interlock to receiving highway funds.  The language stipulates that if states want about 5 percent of their regularly allocated safety money, they must enact a law that requires first-time DUI offenders to install an ignition interlock device if they want to continue driving.  By seeking implementation in this way, MADD can avoid fights in more driver-friendly state legislatures.  Given the long history of pandering to MADD, this commentator is not hopeful of a pro-driver outcome.

Immobilization

If you do not have a prior DUI/OVI offense getting your car back is relatively easy as Ohio DUI law does not authorize immobilization as a penalty for a first offense.  Here are the steps you should take to get your car back.

  • Locate the proper tow lot;
  • Gather enough cash (or other proper payment) to pay towing and storage fees;
  • Gather proof of ownership; and
  • If you were placed under and Administrative License Suspension, get a licensed driver to drive your car from the impound lot.

If you have trouble with ANY of the items above, contact DaytonDUI and we will help get your car back.  We have even gone as far as having our staff drive to the tow lot on our client’s behalf.  It is to your advantage to move quickly in order to save storage fees.

What does a first offense DUI defense cost?  We encounter many people who want a rational, economic justification for hiring an OVI attorney on a first offense OVI.  The only study I could find on this topic was a 2006 Texas Department of Transportation study which calculated the costs of a drunk driving conviction “in that state showed the total costs of a DWI arrest and conviction for a first-time offender with no accident involved would range from $9,000 to $24,000.” [source]  In a story from CNBC citing that study, they speculate that total costs, absent you losing your job, could range as high as $20,000.  While projecting costs without knowing your particular circumstance is wildly speculative, here are some of the expenses you may realize:

  • Fines.
  • Court costs.
  • Attorney fees.
  • Bail.
  • Loss of job.
  • DUI “school.”
  • Temporary loss of income.
  • Car towing, impounding.
  • Alternate transportation costs.
  • Car ignition interlock device.
  • Periodic blood testing.
  • Monthly monitoring fees.
  • Cost of incarceration.
  • Increased auto insurance premiums

Obviously, if you were to lose your job and/or your career because of an Ohio OVI conviction, the lifetime costs skyrocket.  Insurance premiums, damages caused by personal injury or costs of restitution for property damages also cause the costs to climb.  Some of the expenses highlighted above can take years to come to fruition and the lingering effects of having a drunk driving conviction may be with you for life.  The good news is that a good Kettering DUI attorney can significantly curb the financial detriments incurred in a DUI case.  While predicting what an attorney can save you is just as wildly speculative as predicting costs, it is common for many of the costs to be subject to negotiation and/or reduction.  A reduction of the charge will not only lower the possible maximum fines, but can also get rid of ugly mandatory punishments required by Ohio’s OVI statute. O.R.C. 4511.19.  The best way to explore how much a vigorous DUI defense will costs in your case, contact Charles M. Rowland for a free consultation.

Springboro DUI 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 first offense Springboro DUI and other city-specific info at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

 

Snow: What is the Law in Ohio? (by DaytonDUI)

December 9th, 2013

English: Trees covered by snow in Boreal, Cali...

With the return of winter weather, we have received some questions about what constitutes a snow emergency and under what authority a snow emergency can be deemed to exist.  We have also counseled clients who wanted to know what law would circumscribe their behavior during a snow event.  Here is what we learned:

A county sheriff may, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code sections 311.07 and 311.08, declare a snow emergency and temporarily close the state roads and municipal streets within his/her jurisdiction when such action is reasonably necessary for the preservation of the public peace. Ohio Attorney General’s Opinion 97-015, issued April 1, 1997, concluded that this authority includes state roads, county and township roads and municipal streets.

Ohio law provides for three levels of snow emergency.

Snow Emergency Classifications

LEVEL 1: Roadways are hazardous with blowing and drifting snow. Roads may also be icy. Motorists are urged to drive very cautiously.

LEVEL 2: Roadways are hazardous with blowing and drifting snow. Roads may also be very icy. Only those who feel it is necessary to drive should be out on the roads. Contact your employer to see if you should report to work. Motorists should use extreme caution.

LEVEL 3: All roadways are closed to non-emergency personnel. No one should be driving during these conditions unless it is absolutely necessary to travel or a personal emergency exists. All employees should contact their employer to see if they should report to work. Those traveling on the roads may subject themselves to arrest.

Ohio Revised Code 2917.13 sets forth the crime of “Misconduct at an Emergency.”  Any person who knowingly hampers or fails to obey a lawful order of the sheriff declaring a snow emergency and temporarily closing highways, roads and/or streets within his/her jurisdiction may be subject to criminal prosecution under Ohio Revised Code Section 2917.13, “Misconduct at an emergency” or other applicable law or ordinance. A violation under that section is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, punishable by a jail sentence not to exceed 30 days and/or a fine not to exceed $250. If the misconduct creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, it is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by a jail sentence not to exceed 180 days and/or a fine not to exceed $1,000.  Below is the full text of the statute.

ORC 2917.13. Misconduct at emergency.

(A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

  • 1. Hamper the lawful operations of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person, engaged in the person’s duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot or emergency of any kind;
  • 2. Hamper the lawful activities of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person’s duties in an emergency facility;
  • 3. Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer’s duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster or emergency of any kind.

(B) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit access or deny information to any news media representative in the lawful exercise of the news media representative’s duties.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of misconduct at an emergency. Except as otherwise provided in this division, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to persons or property, misconduct at an emergency is a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(D) As used in this section:

  • 1. “Emergency medical services person” is the singular of “emergency medical services personnel” as defined in section 2133.21 of the Revised Code.
  • 2. “Emergency facility person” is the singular of “emergency facility personnel” as defined in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.
  • 3. “Emergency facility” has the same meaning as in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 03-22-2004

To view the state’s weather-related road closures and restrictions, visit the Ohio Department of Transportation’s traffic Web site at www.buckeyetraffic.org.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro, Huber Heights, Oakwood, Beavercreek, Centerville and throughout Ohio.  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 Facebook 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. “All I do is DUI”

Warren County/Springboro OVI Checkpoint (August 9, 2013)

August 9th, 2013

There will be an OVI checkpoint in Warren County tonight!  sobriety checkpoint ahead

The checkpoint will be held on SR 741, which is just north of W. Lytle Five Points Road in Warren County from 8:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.  The checkpoint will be accompanied by aggressive saturation patrols.  If you want to receive updated information on OVI checkpoints,  enhanced traffic enforcement, saturation patrols and other important developments that affect you, sign up for text alerts on the main page of this blog.  Text alerts will be sent directly to your mobile device/smartphone in the location you choose in the Miami Valley.  In the past month we have alerted our followers to the State Route 35 traffic initiative and three local sobriety checkpoints.  You should also know that we respect your trust and we will never send you irrelevant information and/or advertisements.  This service is free and available to the general public.

You can also put DaytonDUI on your Android Smart phone via the DaytonDUI app.  The app helps you know your rights and know yourself by providing a drink tally so that you do not overindulge.  You can send safe drinking tips to friends or use the app to find the nearest taxi for a safe trip home.  The app brings you the best of DaytonDUI’s video and audio content and gives you a chance to take pictures and record memories so that you can aid in your own defense.  Our sincere desire is to make our roads a safer place.

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.  Immediate help is available by filling out this CONTACT form.  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.

What Is Wrong With The HGN? (by DaytonDUI)

June 13th, 2013

My eye

The horizontal gaze nystagmus test is an eye test approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(hereinafter NHTSA) as a tool to detect clues of impairment in drivers.  The HGNtest is one of three psychomotor tests approved as part of the standardized field sobriety testing protocol employed by law enforcement officers throughout the United States and used here in Ohio.

When an officer asks you to follow his pen, he is performing the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  Nystagmus is defined as the oscillation of the eyeball that occurs when there is a disturbance of the vestibular system or the oculomotor control of the eye.  The nystagmus the officer is looking for is an involuntary motion.  A person is usually unaware of the presence of a nystagmus and cannot control it. Forkiotis, C.J. Optometric Exercise: The Scientific Basis for Alcohol Gaze Nystagmus. 59 Curriculum II, No. 7 at 9 (April 1987); Good, Gregory W.  & Augsburger, Arol R. Use of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus as a Part of Roadside Sobriety Testing. 63 Am. J. of Optometry & Physiological Optics 467, 469 (1986); Stapleton, June M. et al. Effects of Alcohol and Other Psychotropic Drugs on Eye Movements: Relevance to Traffic Safety. 47 Q.J. Stud. on Alcohol 426, 430 (1986).  The officer is looking for a type of nystagmus wherein the eye moves slowly in one direction and then returns rapidly, sometimes referred to as a jerk or jerking nystagmus. Adams, Raymond D. & Victor, Maurice. Disorders of Ocular Movement and Pupillary Function.  Principles of Neurology.  Ch.13, 117 (4th ed. 1991).

A major weakness in relying on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test in the criminal justice arena is that there are multiple causes of nystagmus that have been observed.  Syndromes such as influenza, vertigo, epilepsy, measles, syphilis, arteriosclerosis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Korsakoff’s Syndrome, brain hemorrhage, streptococcus infections, and other psychogenic disorders all have been shown to produce nystagmus. Additionally, conditions such as hypertension, motion sickness, sunstroke, eyestrain, eye muscle fatigue, glaucoma, and changes in atmospheric pressure may result in gaze nystagmus. Pangman. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: Voodoo Science. 2 DWI J. 1, 3-4 (1987).  Caffeine, nicotine and aspirin (alone or in combination with alcohol) can also lead to a nystagmus which mimics a nystagmus attributable to alcohol consumption. Id. at 3-4.  Scientific literature also points to a person’s circadian rhythms or biorhythms as having an affect on nystagmus readings as the body reacts differently to alcohol at different times in the day and even fatigue nystagmus can be found in an individual, and the list, according to critics, goes on.   Id. at 3-4; Booker, J.L.  End-position nystagmus as an indicator of ethanol intoxication. Sci Justice.  41(2):113-116. (April – June, 2001).

The horizontal gaze nystagmus test is not present in marijuana impairment cases. In State v. Dixon, 2007-Ohio-5189 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Clermont County 2007), the court addressed the issue of standardized field sobriety tests and marijuana impairment.  Relying upon the NHTSA standards, the court concluded that observations as to performance on the walk & turn test and the one-leg stand test were indicative of impairment, thus allowing those to be used against a suspected marijuana user.  The HGN test, however, is not indicative of marijuana impairment.  According to NHTSA nystagmus would not be present due to marijuana and, as such, it was plain error to admit evidence of the HGN against the defendant accused of marijuana impairment.

Ohio Revised Code 4511.19(D)(4)(b) sets forth the standards for admissibility of the results of field sobriety tests in OVI (drunk driving) prosecutions.  See State v. Bozcar, 113 Ohio St. 3d 148, 2007-Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 115 (2007).  In order for the tests to be admissible, the State must demonstrate:

  1. By clear and convincing evidence.
  2. The Officer administered the tests insubstantial compliance.
  3. The testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted test.
  4. Including, but not limited to, the standards set by NHTSA.

The only guidance provided for determining the meaning of “substantial compliance” has come from State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372 (2003), wherein the court indicated that errors that are clearly “de minimus” or “minor procedural deviations” are not substantial.  Thus, the State must set forth the testing standards, offer some testimony that the testing standards have been accepted and that the officer has substantially complied.  If the State fails to introduce testimonial or documentary evidence of the standards (most likely via the NHTSA training manual), then they have not met this burden. See Village of Gates Mills v. Mace, 2005-Ohio-2191 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County), wherein the State did not meet this burden despite the Court having its own copy of the manual.

In my practice we have seen a trend to manipulating the “substantial compliance” standard into a de facto prejudice standard.  The burden is being subtly shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that he or she was somehow prejudiced by the officer’s failure to comply with the NHTSA standards.  For example; if the officer does not articulate that he advised the suspect not to raise his or her arms, the Court says that he substantially complied by merely mentioning that he was trained in NHTSA protocols.  If, however, the defense points out that the officer did not give the proper instruction and still scored the test in a way negative to the defendant, the court may consider excluding some portion or all of the test.  Case law can be helpful on this point.

In State v. Clay, 34 Ohio St. 2d 250, 298 N.E.2d 137 (1973) the court ruled, “[h]owever, if by cross examination or otherwise, the defense places such compliance at issue, it then is incumbent upon the State, in order to maintain its burden of proof, to offer the methods and regulations into evidence and prove compliance.”  Some courts may try to take Judicial Notice of the manual (See Evid. R 201) when no manual was introduced.  In State v. Wells 2005-Ohio-5008 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist., Montgomery County) held that the court cannot assume judicial notice when the record does not demonstrate a request for judicial notice or a reference to the manual by the trial court.  The 9th District Court of Appeals issued a great decision on the issue of substantial compliance.  Specifically, the issue involved giving the HGN test while the Defendant was seated in the car.  The Court found that this was not substantial compliance. (State v. Haneberg 5/29/2007, 2007-Ohio-2561, 9th District Court of Appeals).

The validity of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests results is dependent upon law enforcement practitioners following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring. NHTSA’s SFST Student Manual states that the procedures demonstrated in the training program describe how SFSTs should be administered under ideal conditions, but that ideal conditions do not always exist in the field. Variations from ideal conditions, and deviations from the standardized procedures, might affect the evidentiary weight that should be given to test results.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in DaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber Heights,Beavercreek, and throughout Ohio.  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 Facebook,www.facebook.com/daytondui and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.comor write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Arrested for OVI in Dayton, Ohio? (by DaytonDUI)

June 4th, 2013

dayton courtsIf you are arrested for drunk driving in the City of Dayton, your misdemeanor DUI case will be heard in the Dayton Municipal Court.  The Dayton Municipal Court is located at 301 West Third Street Dayton, Ohio 45402.  You can visit the Dayton Municipal Court’s website at: www.DaytonMunicipalCourt.org. Office hours for the Clerk of Court are 8:00am to 4:30pm, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, for the acceptance of case filings and payments. Parking, Traffic and Criminal payments can also be paid online at www.PayMyFine.org.  A full list of contact numbers is available on the Court’s website and the Clerk can be reached at (937) 333-4300.

Five full-time elected judges, selected on a nonpartisan ballot to serve for a six-year term, serve the Dayton Municipal Court.  Currently the serving judges are: The Honorable Chris Roberts, The Honorable John S. Pickrel, The Honorable Daniel Gehres, The Honorable Carl S. Henderson and The Honorable Dierdre Logan. Two full-time Magistrates who hear certain civil cases, small claims cases, eviction procedures and initial appearances for defendants summoned in for arraignment also serve the court. They also preside over traffic and criminal cases.

The Dayton Municipal Court has been serving the citizens of Dayton since its creation in 1913.  The jurisdiction of the Court includes everything within the boundaries of the City of Dayton. The court has jurisdiction over a violation of any ordinance of the City of Dayton; any state of Ohio statutory misdemeanor or traffic violation committed in Dayton; and jurisdiction to preside over preliminary hearings for felony cases that occur in the City of Dayton. Civil law jurisdiction includes cases when the amount in dispute is $15,000 or less and for small claims cases when the amount in dispute is $3,000 or less.

According to its 2010 Annual Report the Court “experienced an overall decrease in new case filings in Traffic, Criminal and Civil divisions. Traffic cases decreased by 15%, Criminal by 15%, Civil by 7%, and Small Claims increased by 6.5%.”  There were 24 jury trials heard in the Court and 2010 saw 526 new DUI cases brought in the Dayton Municipal Court.  Charles M. Rowland II (DaytonDUI) saw an increase in the number of Dayton Municipal Court DUI cases that he took in 2010.

Dayton DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’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 Facebook, www.facebook.com/daytondui.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@CharlesRowland.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Related articles