Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney BlogIn July of 2011, state Representative Jarrod Martin was driving his children in his pickup truck in Jackson County, Ohio. He was pulled over by a state trooper for a marked lanes violation after his truck drifted left of center. The trooper asked Martin to perform field sobriety tests, and Martin declined. Martin also declined a breath test, which resulted in a one-year license suspension. Martin was charged with O.V.I. and Child Endangering in the Jackson County Municipal Court. He hired an attorney and pled Not Guilty. Six months later, the charges of O.V.I. and Child Endangering are being dismissed, and Martin is pleading guilty to the Marked Lanes violation, according to the Dayton Daily News.
Articles Posted in DUI/OVI laws and cases
Court Overturns D.U.I. Conviction Of Deaf Defendant
William Kral’s inability to hear made it very difficult for him to communicate with his attorney when he was charged with D.U.I. in the state of Washington. At his arraignment, he was assisted by an unqualified sign language interpreter that led him to believe the document he was signing was a continuance. The document was really a waiver of his right to a speedy trial. Six years later, Kral’s conviction was finally overturned, as reported by The News Tribune.
Second Ohio D.U.I. Charge With A Twist
“Shawn, it’s Joe Smith. You’re not going to believe this, but….” I believe it, because I’ve received this call more than once. My client has a D.U.I. (O.V.I.) pending, we’re scheduled to go back to court soon, and the client is charged with a second D.U.I. This recently happened in a Florida case, with a twist.
Bullcoming!!
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says a defendant in a criminal prosecution shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The extent of that right has undergone significant changes by courts interpreting the Constitution. A recent example is the case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the right of a defendant in a D.U.I. (O.V.I.) case to confront the analyst that determined the concentration of alcohol in the defendant’s blood.
Can I Talk With An Ohio OVI Attorney Before Field Sobriety Tests?
Suddenly, there are flashing lights in your rear-view mirror. ‘What did I do?’ The officer slowly approaches your window. “Good evening. I noticed you had some trouble staying in your lane back there. I need to see your license, registration, and proof of insurance.” The nervousness makes it nearly impossible to get that stupid license out of your wallet. Where is the registration? You finally give the officer the documents. “Just sit tight”, he says, “I’ll be ‘right back.”
Ohio Judge Rules Intoxilyzer 8000 Evidence Inadmissible
The last post of this blog discussed the Gerome case in Athens, Ohio. In that case, which is still pending, the judge will make decisions about the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 and whether a defendant must be given an opportunity to challenge the breath test’s general reliability at trial. In a similar case in Circleville, Ohio, the judge recently ruled that evidence from the Intoxilyzer 8000 is not even reliable enough to be introduced as evidence at trial.
Intoxilyzer 8000 Case May Open Door To Challenging Breath Tests In Ohio
In previous posts, this blog has discussed two separate but related issues. The post on May 3, 2010 explained that defendants in Ohio O.V.I. cases do not have the ability to challenge the general reliability of breath testing machines at trial due to the holding in State v. Vega. The post on May 29, 2010 described how the Ohio Department of Health purchased 700 Intoxilyzer 8000 breath testing machines and is implementing use of the machines throughout Ohio. This post ties together those two issues because a case in Athens County involving the Intoxilyzer 8000 may open the door to challenges regarding the general reliability of breath tests.
Is There A Right To Counsel Before Taking A Breath Test In Ohio?
Imagine you have been arrested for a D.U.I. (O.V.I. in Ohio), and the officer is requesting that you submit to a blood, breath or urine test. You don’t know what you should do, so you ask to speak with an attorney before you make a decision. But the officer doesn’t let you. Is this a violation of your right to counsel? If so, what is the remedy? A recent decision by an Ohio Court of Appeals presents an interesting twist on these issues.
Ohio Court Says Forced Blood Draws Are Constitutional
Historically, if a driver refused to give a sample of blood, breath or urine, the driver’s license would immediately be suspended for refusing, but there would be no alcohol test to use as evidence against the driver. Things changed in 2009, when the Ohio legislature passed a law saying, if a person with prior O.V.I. convictions refuses to submit to a chemical test, “the law enforcement officer who made the request may employ whatever reasonable means are necessary to ensure that the person submits to a chemical test of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.” R.C. 4511.191(A)(5).
Hope Of Challenging Critical Evidence In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases
The last post for this blog discussed the defendant’s right to confront and cross examine the people responsible for the chemical test that determines a defendant’s blood alcohol level. On one hand, the United States Supreme Court strengthened this confrontation right in Melendez-Diaz. On the other hand, an Ohio court of appeals in State v. Collins later held it is not a violation of the defendant’s confrontation rights to admit records at the motion hearing regarding maintenance of the breath-testing machine without the testimony of the person that maintained it. This post addresses a case decided after the Collins decision.