Carrie Underwood’s plea, “Jesus, take the wheel” is being replaced with the hands free command, “Siri, take the wheel”. According to a recent forecast by Business Insider, there will be 10 million self-driving vehicles on the road by 2020. With that in mind, I have been asked several times, “Are you concerned driverless cars will hurt your business as a DUI lawyer?”

Driverless car interior with champaign bottles

I’m not. First, I do not expect a large number of completely self-driving cars on the road before my career ends. Second, a drunk in a driverless car can still be charged with DUI/OVI in Ohio. Third, if self-driving cars put an end to drunk driving, I will gladly transition to another career.

I do not expect driverless cars to take over the roads during my lifetime. By “driverless”, I mean cars which are fully autonomous. There is a distinction between semi-autonomous cars and fully autonomous cars. Semi-autonomous cars have auto-pilot-like features to control steering, accelerating, and braking. Fully autonomous cars transport passengers from one point to another with no intervention from the passengers. There are currently no fully autonomous cars for sale in the United States.

Continue Reading

Last week, the United States Supreme Court released a decision in a trio of cases involving DUI refusal laws.  A previous article in this blog gives a preview of the cases.  To decide the outcomes of those cases, the court analyzes whether search warrants are required before law enforcement officers can administer breath tests and blood tests.  Based on that analysis, the Court decides whether states can make it illegal to refuse chemical tests in DUI cases.  The Court’s decision will impact Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

US Supreme Court Interior

After considering 13 cases involving criminal refusal laws, the Court chose these three cases:  Beylund v. Levi, Bernard v. Minnesota, and Birchfield v. North Dakota.  These three cases were apparently chosen because they have three varying scenarios.  Beylund claimed his consent to a blood test was coerced because he was told he would be punished for refusing the test.  Bernard challenged his conviction for refusing a breath test.  Birchfield argued his conviction for refusing a blood test was unconstitutional.  The Court issued one opinion for all three cases under the caption of Birchfield v. North Dakota.

The Birchfield opinion analyzes the Fourth Amendment issues.  The Court confirms that both breath tests and blood tests are ‘searches’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.  Fourth Amendment law presumes a warrantless search is unreasonable.  Accordingly, for a law enforcement officer to administer a blood test or a breath test, there must be a search warrant or a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement.

Continue Reading

The only presumption permitted in an Ohio DUI/OVI trial is the presumption the defendant is not guilty.  In a case alleging drugged driving, the prosecution must prove the defendant ingested a drug, and the prosecution must prove the defendant’s ability to drive was impaired.  Finally, as a recent case illustrates, the prosecution must prove causation:  the impaired driving ability was caused by ingesting the drug.

Old man walking with a cane

The recent case is State v. Hammond.  A law enforcement officer stopped Hammond for speeding and observed Hammond’s pupils were constricted.  Based on his training in Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE), the officer suspected Hammond may be under the influence.  The officer administered field sobriety tests, and those tests reportedly revealed “clues” of intoxication.  Hammond was 70 years old and walked with a cane.  The officer arrested Hammond for OVI and had Hammond submit a urine sample.  The officer charged Hammond with OVI, and Hammond entered a plea of Not Guilty.

At Hammond’s trial, the prosecution introduced the results of Hammond’s urine test.  The test showed the presence of N-Desmethyldiazepam, Oxazepam, and Temazepam.  The prosecution did not introduce expert testimony to describe the side effects of those drugs, but the officer testified in a conclusory fashion those drugs impaired Hammond’s ability to operate a vehicle.

Continue Reading

I have recently had the privilege of working on OVI cases with attorney Eric Holloway.  In addition to OVI defense, Eric also represents clients in civil rights cases, including cases involving false arrest.  As a follow-up to the last blog entry, ‘Uncovering False Arrests In DUI/OVI Cases’, I asked Eric to summarize the options of a person falsely arrested for OVI.  Eric agreed to be a guest blogger and prepared the remainder of this article.

Under arrest #2The handcuffs clamp down tight on your wrists; sweat beads up on your forehead.  The police officer just told you, “You’re under arrest.”

You did nothing wrong, yet you face the full gauntlet of the criminal justice system.  And you just know the police officer had no grounds to arrest you.  In time, the criminal justice system agrees with you.  In time, the charges are dropped or the jury finds you not guilty.  Now what?

You might think of taking the police officer to court as the next step.  While that is an option, another step should be considered first.  Instead of civil damages, think about your pre-arrest record.  It was probably clean – maybe a speeding ticket or two.  But, even though you won the DUI/OVI case, the charge(s) will show up on your criminal record for anyone to see.  That includes any future employers and many others.
Continue Reading

Officer Richard Fiorito was a DUI supercop.  He was honored by Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD) for his efforts to combat DUI, and he was named a ‘top cop’ by the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists (AAIM).  According to Inthesetimes.com, Fiorito averaged one DUI arrest each day he worked.  He was like a superhero fighting to keep the Chicago streets safe:  it was almost too good to be true.

Actually, it was too good to be true.  It turns out Fiorito falsely arrested dozens of people for DUI.  A typical scenario would look like this:  Fiorito would stop a driver for a minor traffic violation and administer field sobriety tests.  No matter how well the person performed on the tests, the officer would score them as ‘failing’.  He would then arrest them and charge them with DUI.  In court, most people would simply plead guilty at the first court appearance, and others would accept favorable plea bargains rather than go to trial.

Under arrest

There were a couple exceptions:  Steve Lopez and James Dean, Jr.  Steve Lopez was a commercial driver and had just earned his CDL.  To protect his future career, he could not plead guilty.  James Dean, Jr. had good witnesses to contradict Fiorito’s allegations:  other officers.  When Fiorito charged Dean with DUI, Dean had just left the police station where he encountered multiple police officers who did not believe he was under the influence.  Neither Dean nor Lopez was convicted.

Dean and Lopez each filed suit against the city of Chicago for false arrest and malicious prosecution.  They eventually settled with the city for $100,000 each.  The city also agreed to pay legal fees of about $250,000, according to a Chicago Tribune article. *

Continue Reading

Suppose a police officer comes to your home tonight without a warrant and wants you to consent to a search of your residence. If you are like most people, you would say ‘no’: you would assert your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Now suppose the government makes it a crime for you to refuse to consent to the search. That’s what Ohio and several other states have done with DUI laws which criminalize refusing a breath/blood/urine test. Those laws are the subject of cases currently before the United States Supreme Court.

Refusal talk to the hand

The cases are Birchfield v. North Dakota, Bernard v. Minnesota, and Beylund v. Levi. In those cases, state laws make it a criminal offense for a motorist arrested for driving under the influence to refuse to consent to a chemical test of the motorist’s blood, breath or urine. Motorists convicted of those laws appealed their convictions to the Supreme Courts of North Dakota and Minnesota, claiming the refusal laws are unconstitutional. In each case, the state supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the law. In each case, the defendant appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court held oral arguments for these cases on April 20, 2016.

 

Ohio has a law similar to the laws which are the subject of the Supreme Court cases. Ohio’s law (R.C. 4511.19[A][2]) makes it illegal to refuse a breath/blood/urine test for a person who is arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI) and has a prior OVI conviction within the last 20 years. The punishment for this offense includes a minimum mandatory jail sentence which is double the minimum mandatory jail sentence for OVI. Although Ohio’s law is slightly different –it has the added element of a prior conviction – it has the same unconstitutional flaw as the laws in North Dakota and Minnesota.

Continue Reading

A judge in Columbus, Ohio found a man to be in violation of probation because the man was unable to urinate upon request.  The judge was aware the defendant, Mr. Hand, had medical problems which caused urinary difficulties and was taking medication designed to increase his urination.  Nevertheless, the judge concluded Mr. Hand’s inability to urinate constituted a “refusal” to submit to a urine test.  Individuals placed on probation for DUI/OVI in Ohio do not have this kind of experience, ordinarily.  But this was no ordinary case.

dreamstime_m_7554688

Ordinarily, probation (also called “community control” in Ohio) is imposed by a judge for two reasons.  First, probation is imposed so somebody has the responsibility of monitoring the defendant’s compliance with court orders.  That somebody is the probation officer.  Second, probation is imposed to give the defendant incentive to comply with court orders.  If a probationer does not comply with court orders, judges can impose more restrictive probation conditions, lengthen the duration of probation, and impose jail time.

Before a judge can sentence a person for violating probation, the judge must hold a hearing.  At the hearing, the judge first determines if there is probable cause to believe the defendant violated probation.  The judge then determines whether the defendant did, in fact, violate probation.  If the judge concludes the defendant violated probation, the judge imposes a sentence:  more restrictive conditions, additional probation time, and/or jail time.

In the case of Mr. Hand, the judge ordered pretty common probation conditions:  Mr. Hand was ordered to complete a driver intervention program, complete any follow-up counseling recommended by that program, and complete 80 hours of community service.  He was also required to submit to alcohol/drug screens and not refuse any tests (for alcohol/drugs).

Continue Reading

Last week was the annual DUI/OVI seminar presented by the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL).  One of the slogans now attached to the seminar is ‘The Premiere Ohio DUI Defense Seminar’.  When I hear that slogan, two questions come to mind:
1.  Are there any other Ohio DUI defense seminars?
2.  If so, what makes this one the ‘premiere’ seminar?

Page one from Brochure for OACDL DUI seminar March 10-12 2016

Full disclosure:  I co-chaired the seminar this year, so my opinion is probably not unbiased.

With that said, my answers are:
1.  Yes, there are, in fact, several other seminars focused on Ohio DUI/OVI, and
2.  What makes this one the ‘premiere’ seminar is the topic of this blog entry.

One factor which makes the OACDL seminar impressive is the sheer volume of information.  The seminar lasts for about 20 hours.  During that time, about 35 speakers give presentations on topics relevant to DUI/OVI in Ohio.  No other Ohio DUI/OVI seminar comes close to providing that amount of information.  For some, such a long seminar may sound like a nightmare.  For me, it’s time well spent.

Continue Reading

Ohio takes drivers’ licenses before a person is found guilty of DUI/OVI.  If a person is arrested for DUI/OVI and tests over the limit, or refuses to test, that person’s license is suspended immediately.  No judge reviews the circumstances beforehand to determine if the suspension should be imposed.  Instead, the executive branch of the government takes the driver’s license automatically.

It’s called an Administrative License Suspension (ALS).  The suspension is considered a ‘civil’ (not criminal) action, and it is imposed independent of the traffic ticket charging the person with OVI.  Ohio’s administrative license suspension is similar to other states’, including Florida.

Handing driver license to officer
Florida’s administrative license suspension is currently the subject of a class action lawsuit which alleges the ALS is unconstitutional.  The plaintiff seeks damages exceeding $50 million from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, according to this report from Click Orlando.  The plaintiff claims the failure to have a judicial officer review the propriety of the license suspension violates the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Continue Reading

When a person is arrested for DUI/OVI in Ohio, the arresting officer typically asks the person to submit to a breath, blood or urine test. For a test result to be admissible in court, the test must be administered in compliance with regulations issued by the Ohio Department of Health. One regulation requires refrigeration of blood and urine samples, and that regulation was the subject of a recent case decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Evidence bagThe case is State v. Baker. In Baker, the defendant was driving a vehicle and was involved in an accident with a pedestrian. A police officer administered field sobriety tests and obtained a sample of the defendant’s blood. The blood sample was placed in the officer’s cruiser for four hours and ten minutes and then mailed to a crime lab. At the crime lab, the blood sample was tested, and the result was .095 grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood.

 

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood test result because the blood sample was not refrigerated in accordance with the Ohio Department of Health regulations. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The prosecution appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Continue Reading