Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney BlogThe 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.
Articles Posted in DUI/OVI laws and cases
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.
No Right To Challenge The Most Critical Evidence In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases?
Imagine a case in which the defendant is not permitted to challenge the most critical evidence. For example, imagine a products liability case in which the plaintiff says, “we know the product was defective because we did scientific testing which showed it was defective.” The defendant would challenge the scientific testing through cross examination to show why the plaintiff’s test was unreliable. In OVI cases in Ohio, the prosecution often introduces a scientific chemical test to prove the defendant’s concentration of blood, breath, or urine. The defense, however, is prohibited from challenging the general reliability of those chemical tests due to State v. Vega (see blog entry May 3, 2010).
Should Ohio Add A New DUI/OVI Charge?
The police chief in Austin, Texas recently proposed that the State add a new charge of “Driving While Ability Impaired”. Currently in Texas, a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher is considered to be under the influence. The proposed law would punish those drivers whose blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is between .05 and .07, according to a report by Fox News. The proposal in Texas raises the question of whether Ohio should consider adding a new charge for drivers with a BAC between .05 and .07.
Ohio Administrative License Suspension Requires Arrest
R.W. lay in the hospital bed waiting for his injuries to be treated. A police officer came in the room and said she wanted to talk with him about the accident. The officer read to him the B.M.V. 2255 form regarding the consequences of taking and refusing the blood test. She asked him to submit to a blood test, and he refused. The officer wrote him a ticket for O.V.I. (D.U.I.) and imposed a one-year Administrative License Suspension (A.L.S.); the consequence for refusing the blood test.
Should We Get Tough On Bicycle DUI/OVI In Ohio?
A guy rode his bike to the ATM because he thought he was too drunk to drive (he probably needed the cash for Taco Bell or White Castle). To his surprise, a police officer arrested him for O.V.I. (D.U.I.) as he rode through a shopping center parking lot. As part of a plea agreement, the O.V.I. charge was amended, and the bicyclist pled guilty to a charge of Reckless Operation. In response, the city council of Upper Arlington, Ohio is considering toughening the city’s laws regarding riding a bicycle under the influence.
Ohio Driving Under The Influence Of Prescription Medication
When we think of O.V.I. (D.U.I.) cases, we tend to think of cases involving a person driving under the influence of alcohol. However, Ohio O.V.I. law also prohibits operating a vehicle under the influence of a drug of abuse, and many prescription medications are “drugs of abuse”. In a recent O.V.I. case, the court of appeals stated the defendant could be convicted of O.V.I. for operating a vehicle under the influence of prescribed medication.