A few days ago, legal recreational marijuana sales began in Ohio. At some dispensaries, there has been an overwhelming response, with customers standing in line to buy marijuana. As sales can only be made to people who are 21 and older, we can presume most of the recreational marijuana users are also car drivers. Those drivers should be aware of Ohio’s laws regarding marijuana and DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio).
In DUI cases (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), a defendant’s blood or urine sample may be tested by a crime lab to determine the concentration of alcohol and/or drugs in the sample. In court, a lab analyst testifies regarding the blood or urine testing and the results of the test. But what if the analyst testifying is not the analyst who conducted the test? The recent case of Smith v. Arizona addressed whether this violates the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.
When an officer arrests a driver for DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), the officer typically requests that the driver consent to a blood, breath, or urine test. However, a statute in the Ohio Revised Code (section 4511.191) says a driver arrested for OVI implicitly consents to those tests. Can a driver arrested for OVI revoke that consent? This question has not been directly addressed in Ohio but was recently answered by the Supreme Court of Colorado.
The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) recently implemented a policy of administering a breath alcohol test to every driver stopped for a traffic offense. Even if the stop is for a minor violation, and even if the officer has no suspicion the driver is under the influence, the driver must submit to a breath test. Refusing the test is a criminal offense. Could this happen in Ohio?
You probably have heard of the Breathalyzer, but probably not the Brushalyser. Now you have. The Brushalyser is at the intersection of oral hygiene and traffic safety: it’s a toothbrush which doubles as a portable breath alcohol test. But should you rely on your toothbrush to determine whether it’s safe for you to drive?
Ohio’s DUI laws (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio) criminalize driving with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration. To determine whether a person has a prohibited breath alcohol concentration, law enforcement officers use breath-testing machines. If a person refuses a breath test, there are consequences. However, differences in height, age, gender, and smoking habits make some people physically unable to provide a sufficient breath sample. As a result, some people are accused of refusing a breath test when they didn’t.
The Chikushino Police Department has a program in which driving instructors test the driving skills of volunteers who are under the influence of alcohol. According to a CNN article, testing impaired drivers is part of a drunk driving awareness campaign. In Ohio, we do not use drunk driving exams to determine if drivers are impaired by alcohol or drugs. Instead, we use field sobriety tests and blood/breath/urine tests. Those tests are circumstantial evidence that a person was operating a vehicle under the influence.
I recently came across this article in an Ohio newspaper: Judge Denies Motion to Suppress Evidence. What does that mean in a DUI case (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio)? When a judge orders that evidence is suppressed, the evidence is excluded from trial. That means, even though the evidence existed, the jury does not hear about it. The two general bases for suppressing evidence are: (1) violations of the defendant’s Constitutional rights; and (2) the government’s failure to comply with statutory (legislative) law.
In November of 2022, an article in this blog reported the state of Ohio intends to use oral fluid testing in the future. The future is here. When NBC4 reported on the Traffic Safety Council’s recommendation of oral fluid testing for DUI cases (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), the Ohio Department of Health had already passed new regulations which add oral fluid to the bodily substances which may be tested. Those regulations became effective on January 23, 2023.
Continue Reading
We’ve used this space in the past to discuss issues with Ohio’s approach to DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio) cases involving marijuana. The rising prevalence of marijuana OVIs following Ohio’s legalization of medical marijuana has shown Ohio’s OVI laws are woefully out-of-date to deal with these issues. A recent bill in the Ohio Senate seeks to update the way the law treats marijuana OVIs. This bill, if passed, would have a profound impact on the way marijuana OVI cases are charged, handled by courts, and defended by OVI defense attorneys.
Continue Reading
Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog