Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog

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.

August 31, 2013

State v. Lancaster May Change Interpretation Of Ohio Breath Testing Law

by Shawn Dominy

Intoxilyzer 8000 Declared Unreliable In Ohio DUI/OVI Case
This blog has discussed Intoxilyzer 8000 litigation in many previous posts. One of those posts (November 18, 2012) mentioned the case of State v. Lancaster in the Marietta Municipal Court. I was asked to help with that litigation as counsel for Lancaster. Like many of the I-8000 cases throughout Ohio, the Lancaster case involves the reliability of the I-8000. Unlike most of the other cases, however, the Lancaster case includes testimony of expert witnesses for the prosecution and defense. After five days of testimony, the verdict is in, and the breath test is out! The decision has already been appealed and is staged to possibly change the interpretation of breath-testing law in Ohio.

August 10, 2013

Is Drunk Walking A Good Alternative To Drunk Driving?

by Shawn Dominy

By driving under the influence, you could cause harm to property, yourself, and others. You could also be charged with DUI/OVI. Thanks to public awareness programs, the risks of drunk driving are well known. Not so well known are the risks of drunk walking…until now.

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.

July 6, 2013

Franklin County, Ohio D.U.I. Task Force

by Shawn Dominy

It’s July 4th weekend. With Independence Day falling on a Thursday, it’s an extra-long weekend. That means more cookouts, and it also means more police officers patrolling the roads of central Ohio on the lookout for drunk drivers. In central Ohio, the roads are patrolled by several different police departments. Some officers from those police departments are part of a special unit that enforces D.U.I./O.V.I. laws: the Franklin County DUI Task Force.

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.

May 10, 2013

Should Ohio Have Immediate Trials For O.V.I./D.U.I?

by Shawn Dominy

India police officer.jpg

There is little tolerance for drunk driving in Mumbai, India. Like Ohio, the penalty for a first D.U.I. offense in India is up to six months in jail. Unlike Ohio, the legal limit for blood alcohol content in India is .03 (Ohio’s is .08), and there is no plea bargaining. In the month of March, Mumbai traffic police charged 3,727 people with D.U.I. The traffic police recently requested the creation of mobile courts, according to an article in The Times Of India. If the request is granted, magistrates will hear D.U.I. cases at those mobile courts, and the trial will take place immediately.

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.