Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog“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.
Articles Posted in DUI/OVI laws and cases
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.
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.