Hangover-man-after-party-300x210‘Tis the season for holiday parties. ’Tis also the season for DUI/OVI arrests (in Ohio, it’s called OVI). From Thanksgiving Eve (‘blackout Wednesday’) to New Year’s Day, officers are particularly ambitious about enforcing Ohio’s drunk driving laws this time of year.

But OVI convictions can be avoided. The first five recommendations below may help you avoid getting arrested and charged with OVI. If you get arrested anyway, the second five recommendations may help you avoid getting convicted of OVI and having that OVI conviction on your permanent record.

If You Want To Avoid Getting Arrested
10. Make a plan and stick to it. I can’t tell you how many times a client has told me they were not planning on driving that night, but circumstances changed, and they ended-up driving home. If you know you are going to drink alcohol, plan to wait to drive until the alcohol won’t affect your driving, or arrange alternate transportation. If circumstances change, don’t ‘end-up driving home’: call a cab or use a ride-sharing program like Uber or Lyft.
Bonus tip: ‘I was the most sober one of the group’ is not a valid defense!

9. Avoid driving during ‘drunk time’. In the minds of many police officers, the only people driving between 1:00 am and 3:00 am are police officers and drunks. If you are not driving a cruiser, some officers are going to presume you’ve been drinking and look for a reason to pull you over.

Continue Reading

When a celebrity is accused of DUI/OVI in Ohio, the celebrity’s cruiser video is often on the local news the next day. News outlets obtain cruiser videos by making public records requests with the arresting law enforcement agency. Those public records requests are routinely processed quickly. Sometimes, however, law enforcement agencies decline or delay release of the public records. A recent case decided by the Ohio Supreme Court addresses the details of releasing cruiser videos as public records.

Inside cruiser 1

The case is State ex rel Cincinnati Enquirer v. Ohio Department of Public Safety. In that case, two cruisers from the Ohio State Highway Patrol were involved in a pursuit. The pursuit ended with the suspect crashing into a guardrail and being arrested. The suspect was charged with multiple felony offenses, including Fleeing And Eluding and Carrying a Concealed Weapon.

The Cincinnati Enquirer made a public records request for the ‘dash cam’ video from the two cruisers. The Ohio State Highway Patrol declined to provide the videos, claiming the videos were not subject to public records requests because the videos were confidential law enforcement investigatory records. The Enquirer filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Highway Patrol to provide the cruiser videos.

Continue Reading

In Ohio DUI / OVI cases, mandatory minimum penalties are increased based on prior OVI convictions.  One issue faced by Ohio courts is whether a person’s OVI adjudication (‘conviction’) as a juvenile can be used to enhance a subsequent OVI sentence as an adult.  The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued an opinion which settles the issue.

Juvenile arrested

The case of State v. Hand did not involve an OVI, but the decision will apply to OVI convictions.  Hand was convicted of Aggravated Burglary, Aggravated Robbery, Kidnapping and Felonious Assault.  Those offenses are categorized as first degree felonies and second degree felonies.  Ohio Revised Code section 2929.13(F)(6) says the judge must impose a mandatory prison term for first and second degree felonies if the defendant has a prior conviction for a first or second degree felony.  Ohio Revised Code section 2901.08(A) says a juvenile adjudication for a criminal offense or traffic offense is a ‘conviction’ for purposes of determining the sentence in a later conviction.  Relying on those two Ohio Revised Code sections, the judge imposed a mandatory prison term.

Hand appealed the judge’s sentence, and the case was ultimately heard by the Ohio Supreme Court.  The Court noted the juvenile justice system is different than the adult criminal justice system.  Juvenile case dispositions are intended to be “civil and rehabilitative”, while adult sentencing is “criminal and punitive”.  The court also noted that, while juveniles are afforded most of the same Constitutional rights as adults, there is one right not required in juvenile court proceedings:  trial by jury.

Continue Reading

Over 20,000 DWI cases in New Jersey are being called into question due to problems with the recalibration of breath-testing machines.  According to New Jersey 101.5, Sgt. Marc Dennis skipped a critical step each time he recalibrated the machines.  Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit now seek to vacate thousands of convictions in which evidence was produced by those breath-testing machines.  Although this debacle occurred in New Jersey, it illustrates the importance of properly maintaining breath-testing machines in Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

Simulator

In Ohio DUI/OVI cases, there is a distinction between a calibration and a calibration check.  When breath-testing machines are built, the machines must be ‘taught’ to identify and quantify alcohol (ethanol).  That ‘teaching’ process is a calibration.  As a machine is being used by a law enforcement agency, the agency periodically runs a test to confirm the machine produces accurate results.  The test is done using a simulator like the one pictured here.  That periodic test is a calibration check.

Calibration checks, also referred to as ‘instrument checks’, are done at least once per week in Ohio.  The weekly instrument checks are conducted by the law enforcement agency which owns and/or operates the breath-testing machine.  Some agencies assign the responsibility to one officer, and, in other agencies, multiple officer share the responsibility of conducting weekly instrument checks.

Continue Reading

Today’s report regarding the conduct of a forensic scientist employed by the state of Ohio demonstrates the danger of the government enforcing laws without effective checks and balances.  Forensic scientist G. Michele Yezzo worked for over 30 years as a laboratory technician for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI).  During that time, she analyzed evidence in criminal cases and testified in court regarding those analyses.  The feature story in The Columbus Dispatch says she now, “stands accused of slanting evidence to help cops and prosecutors build their cases.”

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-blood-test-hand-latex-glove-holding-sample-vial-front-form-image37079485According to the newspaper report, the BCI employee stretched the truth in her analyses to satisfy law enforcement.  She even reportedly went so far as asking police officers “What do you need the evidence to say?”  Her work as a government scientist led to hundreds of criminal convictions, including serious cases involving murder and rape.  This forensic scientist’s lack of credibility calls many of those convictions into question.  It also brings attention to the issue of forensic testing in Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

In Ohio OVI cases, forensic testing at crime labs is used to detect and measure alcohol and drugs in blood and urine samples.  If a driver is arrested and the officer suspects the driver is under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs of abuse, the officer asks the driver to submit a sample of breath, blood or urine.  Breath samples are analyzed on-the-spot by a breath-testing machine.  Blood and urine samples are sent to a crime lab for analysis.

Continue Reading

Yes, I saw Carlos Santana perform at the House of Blues.  It’s true, I rented a convertible Mustang.  I admit I hiked a breath-taking trail in Red Rock Canyon.  I also acknowledge I enjoyed the luxury of Bellagio and saw amazing views from the High Roller.  However:  the primary purpose of my trip to Vegas was to learn more about DUI/OVI defense.

Photo of NCDD seminar name tag at Bellagio

I recently attended the annual ‘DWI Means Defend With Integrity’ seminar.  The seminar is co-sponsored by the National College for DUI Defense and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.  It’s held in Las Vegas each year at the end of September or beginning of October; not a bad time to be in Vegas.  The location has historically been Caesar’s Palace, but for the last two years, the seminar has been held at Bellagio.  This year marks the 20th anniversary for the seminar, and I have attended for about 15 years.

 

This is a great seminar.  The speakers are some of the best DUI lawyers and experts from around the nation.  I have been practicing since 1997, and I have been focusing on DUI/OVI defense since 2002.  I feel like I have developed a bit of expertise in this area.  When I attend this seminar, however, I always learn more.  Hearing from the seminar faculty helps me avoid the limiting comparisons of my local market and allows me to benchmark against world class attorneys.  It also adds to my box of tools for winning.

Continue Reading

Until a few days ago, the scope of driving privileges for Ohio DUI/OVI suspensions was very limited.  A parent on limited driving privileges was not permitted to drive children for extra-curricular activities.  A person on limited driving privileges was not allowed to drive to care for elderly parents.  A person on limited driving privileges could not drive to AA or counseling unless it was court-ordered.  That changed last week, when the state legislature revised Ohio law for limited driving privileges.

Statehouse with Ohio flag

The revised law is Ohio Revised Code section 4510.021.  That section authorizes courts to grant limited driving privileges for driver license suspensions, including DUI/OVI suspensions.  The last time the statute changed was 2004.  Before 2004, the law only provided for occupational driving privileges.  In 2004, the statute was revised to expand driving privileges, authorizing privileges for the following purposes:

•    Occupational, educational, vocational, or medical purposes;
•    Taking the driver’s or commercial driver’s license examination;
•    Attending court-ordered treatment.

The most recent change to the law, in September of 2016, further expands the permissible scope of limited driving privileges.  The statute still lists the purposes above and now adds the catch-all phrase, “Any other purpose the court determines appropriate”.

Continue Reading

The last entry in this blog discussed lesson number one for appealing an Ohio Administrative License Suspension (A.L.S.).  The lesson came from a recent appellate case.  That lesson was for defense lawyers, and it was simple:  file the appeal on time.  This entry discusses lesson number two, which also comes from a recent appellate case.  This lesson is for courts, and it is also simple:  follow the law.

Scales of justice half

The government cannot take property without due process of law.  Due process of law includes an opportunity to be heard (a hearing) at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.  With an A.L.S., the executive branch of government takes property from an individual by suspending the individual’s driver’s license.  Therefore, the individual is entitled to a meaningful hearing at meaningful time.  The most meaningful time for the hearing would be before the license suspension is imposed.  However, the Ohio Supreme Court held the A.L.S., with a post-suspension hearing, is not unconstitutional.

What keeps the A.L.S. from being unconstitutional is mainly the procedures found in Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C.) section 4511.192.  That statute includes the following requirements:

•    The officer must advise the individual of the consequences of taking or refusing a chemical test, using a form (BMV form 2255).
•    The officer’s advice must be witnessed, and the witness must sign the form.
•    The officer must write on the form the officer’s reasonable grounds to believe the individual was under the influence.
•    The officer must notify the individual of the suspension and the individual’s right to appeal the suspension.
•    The officer must sign the form, and the form must be sworn.
•    The officer must give a sworn copy of the form to the individual.
•    The officer must send copies of the form to the court and the BMV within 48 hours of the individual’s arrest.

Continue Reading

Practicing law is an art, not a science, and there are various methods to develop skill at the art of lawyering. One method is to learn the hard way. In a recent Ohio OVI case, the defense lawyer learned the hard way lesson number one for appealing an Administrative License Suspension (A.L.S.). Hopefully, others will learn from this example.

In Ohio, an A.L.S. is separate from the underlying charge of O.V.I. An A.L.S. is imposed if a suspect is arrested for O.V.I. and either refuses a chemical test for alcohol/drugs or tests ‘over the limit’. The length of the A.L.S. and the suspect’s eligibility for limited driving privileges depend on whether the suspect has prior O.V.I. convictions and/or prior test refusals.

Woody Allen with quote

The A.L.S. can be appealed. Although the A.L.S. is separate from the O.V.I. case, a defendant may appeal the A.L.S., and/or seek limited driving privileges, in the context of the O.V.I. case. The A.L.S. appeal is filed with the court in which the O.V.I. case is being held, and the A.L.S. appeal is typically heard by the same judge who hears the O.V.I. case.

The A.L.S. was appealed in the case of State v. Schertzer.  In that case, the defendant was arrested for O.V.I., and his breath test result was .303.  As a result, Schertzer was subjected to a 90-day A.L.S.  The defendant was arrested on June 6 and went to his initial court appearance on June 8.  On September 2, 86 days after his initial appearance in court, the defense lawyer filed an appeal of the A.L.S.

Continue Reading

At some point, the exception becomes the rule.  To discourage police from violating individual rights, we developed the exclusionary rule.  If evidence is obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure, or other Constitutional violation, the evidence is excluded from trial.  That’s the general rule.  Courts, however, have created exceptions to this rule.  One exception to the exclusionary rule was the subject of a recent case before the United States Supreme Court.  The outcome of that case could affect DUI/OVI cases in Ohio.

Arrested

The case is Utah v. Strieff.  Edward Strieff walked out of a residence in Salt Lake City and was stopped by a narcotics detective.  The detective had been conducting intermittent surveillance on the residence and suspected the occupants were dealing drugs there.  Strieff was not an occupant.  At the time he stopped Strieff, the detective had not seen Strieff engage in any activity resembling a drug deal, and the detective did not know how long Strieff had been in the residence.  Nevertheless the detective stopped Strieff and obtained his identification.

The detective ran a check on Strieff and learned there was a warrant for Strieff’s arrest for a minor traffic offense.  The detective arrested Strieff and conducted a search of Strieff’s person incident to the arrest.  During the search, the detective found methamphetamine in Strieff’s pocket.  Strieff was charged with drug possession, and he filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the illegal stop.  The trial court overruled Strieff’s motion, and the case was ultimately appealed through the Utah state courts to the United States Supreme Court.

Continue Reading