The abominable snowman was arrested for drunk driving. The ‘arrest’ of the snowman was part of a campaign by the St. Helens Police Department to crackdown on drunk driving during the holidays. Although the arrest was fake, the message was real: DUI/OVI enforcement is increased during the holiday season.
During a recent OVI jury trial, the judge and I disagreed about the function of standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs). During a sidebar, I argued the tests do not measure driving impairment; they predict blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The judge’s opinion was SFSTs measure impairment of driving ability. The judge’s opinion prevailed, despite being wrong, because the judge’s opinion always prevails in the judge’s courtroom (unless and until an appellate court says otherwise). This particular judge is intelligent, well-intentioned, and better educated on DUI/OVI issues than most judges and lawyers. If this judge misunderstands the purpose of SFSTs, it’s a topic worth addressing.
A few hours before the Las Vegas shooting, I checked-in at the Monte Carlo, four ‘doors’ down from Mandalay Bay. I was there to attend the DUI defense seminar presented by the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD). The desk clerk said the Monte Carlo was being renovated (no pool, no spa, nearly no restaurants), and she offered to move me to Mandalay Bay. I decided to stay at the Monte Carlo and just use the pool at Mandalay Bay. My body was still on Ohio time, so I was going to bed when the shooting started. I was aware there was a lot of noise (apparently, the Monte Carlo was locked-down), so I put in earplugs and went to sleep.
Lawyers disagree on what part of a trial is the most important. Some lawyers say the closing argument is the most important part because that’s when we tie everything together and persuade. Others say the closing doesn’t matter much: trials are lost or won during jury selection. Still others say the most critical phase of a trial is cross-examination.
When a machine is given the power to convict a person of a crime, we should be absolutely certain the machine is working properly. In Ohio, machines are used to measure the concentration of alcohol in the breath of drivers. A driver who operates a vehicle with a breath alcohol concentration of .080 or more is guilty of OVI, even if that person’s ability to drive was not impaired by the alcohol. As breath-testing machines have that much power, the accuracy and precision of the machines is critical, so they are subjected to a weekly instrument check. A recent case by an Ohio appellate court downplays the importance of those weekly instrument checks.
The reasonable person. Courts make many decisions using the test of what ‘a reasonable person’ would do/think/feel under certain circumstances. Older cases used the ‘reasonable man’ standard, but newer cased have modernized the test with gender neutrality. In the recent case of Cleveland v. Oles, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded a reasonable person stopped by a police officer and placed in a cruiser would not necessarily believe he or she is ‘in custody’, so Miranda warnings are not required.
In his book Good To Great, Jim Collins discusses ‘the hedgehog concept’. The concept is essentially this: although the fox is a cunning predator, the hedgehog always defeats the fox because the hedgehog focuses on doing one thing well – it rolls into a ball of spiky quills the fox cannot penetrate. The hedgehog concept applies to practicing law: focusing on one narrow area of law and doing it well leads to expertise and effectiveness. In the narrow area of DUI/OVI defense, one great way to learn is attending advanced level seminars like the summer session of the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD).
This the week of July 4th. For some, that means celebrating our nation’s independence with burgers, beer and boats. As alcohol is often mixed with boating, people are prosecuted and punished for boating under the influence (BUI). But how do law enforcement officers determine if a person’s ability to operate a boat is impaired by alcohol?
Fourth amendment law does not lend itself to mathematical formulas. Rather than using equations to decide Constitutional issues, courts look at the totality of the circumstances and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. This is particularly true when it comes to the issue of whether an officer had probable cause to justify an arrest. However, one theorem illustrated by a recent Ohio OVI case is this: clues on Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) does not equal Probable Cause (PC).
After Tiger Woods’ recent DUI arrest, he issued a statement in which he said, “I want the public to know alcohol was not involved. What happened was an unexpected reaction to prescribed medications.” Prescription medications, as well as non-prescribed drugs, account for an increasing number of DUI/OVI cases in Ohio and throughout the United States. Tiger’s situation very publicly spotlights the complicated problem of drugged driving.
Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog