Many continuing legal education seminars teach the art of trial skills. In the area of DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), fewer than five percent of cases go to trial, but 100% of cases involve negotiation. For the first time, the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) held a seminar to improve negotiation skills. The presentations provided valuable insight, and three of them stood-out to me.
The city of Goodlettsville recently settled with a driver who was wrongfully charged with DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). The settlement was reported by a local television station which conducted an investigation into sober drivers charged with DUI. The investigation revealed the driver in Goodlettsville was one of hundreds charged with DUI and later exonerated by forensic testing.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided a case in which an officer conducted a traffic stop after learning the basis for the stop was no longer valid. The issue was whether evidence obtained from the stop was admissible in the defendant’s trial. This issue was addressed by this court in 1984. However, in the recent case, the Court reached a different conclusion.
This blog is not a bar band: we take requests without asking for tips! Yesterday, we received a question from a reader who wants to understand the interplay of Child Endangering and DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). This article is going to answer that reader’s question. Ask and you shall receive.
A few days ago, legal recreational marijuana sales began in Ohio. At some dispensaries, there has been an overwhelming response, with customers standing in line to buy marijuana. As sales can only be made to people who are 21 and older, we can presume most of the recreational marijuana users are also car drivers. Those drivers should be aware of Ohio’s laws regarding marijuana and DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio).
Justin Timberlake’s arrest for DWI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio) demonstrates the crucial need for the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. Within hours after Timberlake’s arrest, hundreds of website pages broadcasted the accusation. Many people, like the writer of this article, have already convicted him in their minds. In court, the presumption of innocence is critical due to our human nature to presume guilt.
In DUI cases (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), a defendant’s blood or urine sample may be tested by a crime lab to determine the concentration of alcohol and/or drugs in the sample. In court, a lab analyst testifies regarding the blood or urine testing and the results of the test. But what if the analyst testifying is not the analyst who conducted the test? The recent case of Smith v. Arizona addressed whether this violates the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.
When an officer arrests a driver for DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), the officer typically requests that the driver consent to a blood, breath, or urine test. However, a statute in the Ohio Revised Code (section 4511.191) says a driver arrested for OVI implicitly consents to those tests. Can a driver arrested for OVI revoke that consent? This question has not been directly addressed in Ohio but was recently answered by the Supreme Court of Colorado.
The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) recently implemented a policy of administering a breath alcohol test to every driver stopped for a traffic offense. Even if the stop is for a minor violation, and even if the officer has no suspicion the driver is under the influence, the driver must submit to a breath test. Refusing the test is a criminal offense. Could this happen in Ohio?
A truck driver hauling 43,000 pounds of beer was charged with DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). According to KRCR TV, the driver’s blood alcohol content was ‘over the limit’ for both commercial drivers and non-commercial drivers. While the irony of a beer deliverer being charged with DUI may sound comical, a commercial driver would find nothing funny about being charged with OVI. For holders of a commercial driver’s license (CDL), the rules related to OVI are strict, and the consequences are severe.
Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog