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.
Driving is an activity which requires sustained attention. Drivers must focus on driving and divide their attention among multiple parts of the driving activity: steering, acceleration, braking, watching the speedometer, watching the road, and reacting to a constantly changing environment. For DUI investigations (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio), law enforcement officers are taught to look for problems with attention and administer divided attention sobriety tests. What happens when the subject of an OVI investigation is a driver with ADHD?
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Court recently decided a case in which an officer conducted a traffic stop after learning the basis for the stop was no longer valid.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.
The Vegas DUI seminar presented by NCDD and NACDL always rekindles my passion for DUI defense (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). This year, I went with my associate Bryan Hawkins. Although we have both presented at many seminars, there is always more to learn, and we each felt like there were many useful take-aways from the presentations. The presentations were all good, and there were three which were especially noteworthy.
A recent news story reported the arrest of a 14-year-old boy for DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). It is somewhat unusual for a juvenile to be charged with OVI in Ohio. When a juvenile faces an OVI case, some aspects are the same as adult OVIs and some components are different. Those components include the investigation, the court process, and the penalties.
Delta-8 THC products are widely available in Ohio. You can’t walk into an Ohio gas station without seeing edibles and vapes containing the drug. The Ohio legislature has introduced bills to regulate Delta-8 THC products, but they are currently unregulated. As Delta-8 THC is mildly psychoactive, the question is whether a person can be convicted of DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio) based on using Delta-8 THC.
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.
Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog