DUI/OVI laws and cases

September 21, 2013

Deficient Field Sobriety Tests Are Inadmissible In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases

Standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) are administered in nearly every DUI/OVI case in Columbus and central Ohio. A previous post in this blog analyzed the standard for admitting the tests as evidence in court: the SFSTS must be administered in substantial compliance with the officers’ training manual for the tests to be admissible. A recent case in an Ohio appellate court applied that standard and concluded the tests were not admissible in Middleburg Heights v. Gettings.

July 13, 2013

Court Rescues Intoxilyzer 800 For Use In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

Thumbnail image for Intoxilyer 8000 photo with sign saying do not use.jpg

But for a technical legal issue that may only be interesting to an Ohio DUI/OVI lawyer, the case of State v. McMahon would be pretty generic. An officer pulled him over for speeding, noticed the odor of alcohol, administered field sobriety tests, arrested him, gave him a breath test on an Intoxilyzer 8000, and charged him with O.V.I. McMahon filed a motion to suppress the results of the breath test, claiming the Department of Health was required to make rules for obtaining ‘operator access cards’ (to operate the I-8000) and never did. The trial court agreed with McMahon and threw out the breath test.

June 15, 2013

Erin Brockovich Case Illustrates Tough Sentences For Boating Under The Influence In Ohio

by Shawn Dominy

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but what happens near Vegas gets broadcast for the world to see. That’s what Erin Brockovich found out a few days ago when she was charged with Boating Under the Influence on Lake Mead, just outside Las Vegas, Nevada.

After reading the news coverage of her case, I compared the B.U.I. laws of Ohio and Nevada and concluded Ohio has relatively tough sentences for boating under the influence.

June 8, 2013

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Discovery Obligations In DUI/OVI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

Video-camera-in-cruiser-300x256 For the second time in two months, the Ohio Supreme Court decided a case interpreting the discovery rules that apply to Ohio DUI/OVI cases and criminal cases. A previous post in this blog discussed ‘recent’ changes to the rules for discovery, the exchange of evidence between the prosecution and defense. In March of 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court decided the case of State v. Darmond and addressed how sanctions are to be imposed for violations of the discovery rules. In May of 2013, the Court issued a decision addressing when the obligation of providing discovery is triggered for the defense.

May 26, 2013

Ohio Appellate Court Affirms Conviction In D.U.I./O.V.I. Case Involving Prescription Drugs

by Shawn Dominy

Pills with blue background.jpg

William Strebler was lucky and unlucky. When he drove his car between two parked trucks, nobody was killed or injured. That’s pretty lucky. After he was found guilty of driving under the influence of his prescribed pain medicine, his conviction was affirmed by the court of appeals, and he had to serve two years in prison. That’s not-so-lucky. His case illustrates the importance of trial strategy in Ohio D.U.I./O.V.I. defense and also demonstrates the difficulty of enforcing D.U.I./O.V.I. laws when the substance in question is a prescription medication.

April 20, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Raises Questions About Blood Tests in Ohio D.U.I./O.V.I. Cases

by Shawn Dominy

Blood draw.jpg

In a previous post, this blog questioned whether police should be able to draw blood against your will without a search warrant. At that time, oral arguments had recently been held in the case of Missouri v. McNeely. A few days ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the McNeely case. Based on that decision, the Constitutionality of the law for forced blood tests in Ohio O.V.I. cases is questionable.

April 6, 2013

Sanctions For Discovery Violations In Ohio Criminal And D.U.I./O.V.I. Cases

by Shawn Dominy

Referee-red-card-300x200 How are sanctions to be imposed for violations of Ohio’s discovery rules? That question was the subject of a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. In a previous post, this blog described the changes to the rules for discovery (exchanging evidence) in Ohio criminal and D.U.I./O.V.I. cases. In a case decided a couple weeks ago, the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted the new discovery rules for the first time.

February 16, 2013

Appellate Court Rules On Intoxilyzer 8000 Admissibility In Central Ohio OVI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

For the first time, an appellate court in Central Ohio addressed whether evidence from an Intoxilyzer 8000 is admissible in an O.V.I./D.U.I. trial. The court of appeals ultimately decided that the defendant is prohibited from challenging the general reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000, so the results of that machine’s breath tests are admissible. The court’s opinion, however, contained language questioning whether that prohibition should continue to be the law in Ohio O.V.I. cases.

September 22, 2012

Rules Not Followed = Blood Test Thrown Out

by Shawn Dominy

Blood draw.jpg There are rules for blood testing, and they aren’t new. If the prosecution wants to admit a blood test as evidence in an Ohio O.V.I./D.U.I. case, the prosecution has to prove certain procedures were followed for the blood test. A few days ago, an Ohio court of appeals held that the procedures weren’t followed, so the blood test should have been thrown out in Statev. Ragle.

September 1, 2012

Statewide Texting Ban Begins In Ohio

by Shawn Dominy

Those 160 characters could cost you 150 dollars. If you are under 18, driving and texting could also cost you your license. Ohio’s statewide ban on texting while driving became effective yesterday.