I Fight For Commercial Drivers
Ohio Revised Code 4506.16 sets for the ways that you can be disqualified or lose your commercial driver’s license.
- 4506.16(D)(5) If you are convicted of two “serious traffic violations” within a three (3) year period, your commercial driver’s license will be suspended for sixty (60) days.
- 4506.16(D)(6) If you are convicted of three “serious traffic violations” within a three (3) year period, you commercial driver’s license will be suspended for 120 days.
If you receive [Read the full post. . .]
In possibly the best article you will ever read on portable breath testing, DUI attorneys Justin McShane and Josh Lee describe the portable breath test devises which are used by the Ohio State Highway Patrol as a “potentially dangerous, non-specific and non-selective measures at roadside.” You can find the article HERE and in the Voice for the Defense.
[Read the full post. . .]
The Problems of Fuel Cell Devices
1.1. Lack of Specificity20 for Ethanol
As PBTs are used for purportedly forensic purposes, their specificity
Ohio appears ready to pass a requirement that judges consider a persons’ military service when deciding a sentence in a criminal case. Sub. S.B. 330, proposed by Senator Joe Schiavoni would apply to both misdemeanor and felony charges. “They have been through things that most of us haven’t,” Schiavoni said. “It’s so, so important we consider that before they get thrown into jail and their problems aren’t handled properly.” Schiavoni says the bill has bipartisan support from both legislators [Read the full post. . .]
As we have long warned in this blog, MADD and its allies in government are working hard to implement harsh measures that will test every person who gets into a car without their consent for alcohol impairment. Yesterday, the National Transportation Safety Board has officially urged every state to “require all convicted drunken drivers, including first-time offenders, to use devices that prevent them from starting a car’s engine if their breath tests positive for small (non-impairing) levels of alcohol.” This [Read the full post. . .]
Some Ohio courts have upheld determinations that the mere presence of a moderate to strong odor of alcohol, coupled with a proper initial stop, is sufficient to justify the administration of field sobriety tests. See, e.g., State v. Tackett, 2d Dist. No. 2011-CA-15, 2011-Ohio-6711 (“[t]his court has, however, repeatedly held that a strong odor of alcohol alone is sufficient to provide an officer with reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior”). See also State v. Schott, 2d Dist. [Read the full post. . .]