Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog

Articles Posted in DUI/OVI Constitutional issues

Four months after Brittany was arrested and charged with OVI, the government charged her with a second count of OVI. In November, Brittany was arrested for OVI. On the day of her arrest, she submitted a urine sample, and she was charged with OVI. Three weeks later, the urine sample was analyzed, and the result was provided to the police department. In March, four months after the arrest, the police department charged Brittany with a second count of OVI based on the result of the urine test. Isn’t that a violation of her right to a speedy trial?

Alarm clock

That question was answered last week in State Of Ohio v. Brittany Wieland. This issue has been addressed by different Ohio courts of appeals but has never been directly addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio appellate courts have reached different conclusions because the issue is not simple. The situation involves two OVI charges and two types of speedy trial rights.

The two different OVI charges involved in this case are OVI ‘impaired’ and OVI ‘per se’. For the charge of OVI ‘impaired’, the government must prove the defendant’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol. For the charge of OVI ‘per se’, the government must prove the concentration of alcohol in the defendant’s urine exceeded .109 (the equivalent of .08 in blood).

Continue Reading

The Miranda warnings are well-known:  “you have the right to remain silent….”  What is not so well-known is when the Miranda warnings are required.  According to Miranda v. Arizona, the warnings must be given when a suspect is questioned while ‘in custody’.  If a suspect is in custody and the warnings are not given, statements made by the suspect cannot be used in the suspect’s trial.

Suspect and officer outside cruiser

In an OVI case, a suspect may tell an officer, “I had 13 beers, and I know I shouldn’t be driving”.  If the suspect was in custody at the time of making that statement, the statement is never heard by the jury if the Miranda warnings are not given.  For Ohio OVI cases, the question often is this:  when is a person ‘in custody’ for purposes of Miranda?

This question was first addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Berkemer v. McCarty.  In Berkemer, the defendant was stopped for a traffic violation and investigated for DUI.  During the investigation, but before the arrest, the defendant made incriminating statements.  The court held Miranda warnings are required for misdemeanor offenses if a suspect is questioned in custody.  The court concluded a person is not in custody during a routine traffic stop, but treatment by the officer after the stop may render a person in custody.

Continue Reading

An appellate case decided earlier this month illustrates how not to attack the constitutionality of a law.  In the case of State v. Topolosky, the Tenth District Court of Appeals upheld Ohio’s DUI/OVI marijuana law.  Coincidentally, just before the case was published, I wrote about this topic in this blog, and I spoke about this topic at two seminars.  The defendant in Topolosky did essentially the opposite of what I suggested in the blog and presentations.  The defendant used an argument destined to fail…with bad timing…without an expert witness.

Pizza half baked

The argument destined to fail was the argument that the law violates the defendant’s rights to due process and equal protection.  This argument was destined to fail because, unless a suspect classification or fundamental right is involved, the law is judged using the ‘rational basis test’.  With this test, the law will only be considered unconstitutional if the law has no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.

 

When courts apply the rational basis test, it is incredibly rare for a law to be held unconstitutional.  Using the rational basis test, another Ohio appellate court had already upheld the OVI marijuana ‘per se’ law in State v. Schulz.  It is no surprise the Court of Appeals in Topolosky upheld the same law using the same rationale.

Continue Reading

Issue 3 went up in smoke last week, so it’s still illegal to use marijuana in Ohio.  It’s also illegal to operate a vehicle under the influence of marijuana or with a prohibited level of marijuana metabolite in one’s urine.  The last article in this blog addressed the duration of marijuana’s effects and the duration of marijuana’s detectability.  The conclusion was marijuana effects last for two hours to five hours, but marijuana metabolites are detectable in urine for up to five weeks.  With that backdrop, this article discusses whether Ohio’s DUI/OVI marijuana laws are Constitutional.

Marijuana and gavel

The part of Ohio’s OVI law with the most significant Constitutional problem is the part which prohibits driving with marijuana metabolites in one’s urine.  Ohio Revised Code section 4511.19(A)(1)(j)(viii)(II) says no person shall operate a vehicle with a concentration of at least thirty-five nanograms of marihuana metabolite per milliliter of the person’s urine.  A person may be punished for violating this law even though the person’s ability to drive is not at all impaired.

One principle of Constitutional Law is a law should not punish a person based on the person’s status.  A case illustrating this principle is Robinson v. California.  In that case, the defendant was convicted of a California law which made it a crime to be addicted to a narcotic.  The United States Supreme Court held the law was Unconstitutional:  it violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.  The court made two relevant observations.  First, the status of ‘narcotic addiction’ could subject a defendant to repeated arrests.  Second, a defendant could be punished for being an addict in the state of California even though he did not possess or consume a narcotic in that state.

Continue Reading

Next week, Ohioans will vote on Issue 3:  a state constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana for medicinal and personal use*.  If marijuana use is legalized in Ohio, more drivers will face charges of operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana.  Ohio’s OVI-marijuana laws raise many questions:  How long does a marijuana high last?  Does marijuana impair driving ability?  Do blood and urine test results correlate with impaired driving ability?  Are Ohio’s OVI-marijuana laws Constitutional?  This article addresses the first question by discussing the duration of marijuana effects.

Urine test positive for THC

The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).  THC is what makes a person ‘high’.  Whether smoked or eaten, when THC enters the body, it is broken down (metabolized) quickly, either in lungs or stomach.  When this metabolism occurs, metabolites are produced.  A metabolite is any substance produced during metabolism:  what remains after a drug is ‘broken down’.

As marijuana is metabolized when it enters the body, it is laughable that Ohio law prohibits operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of “marihuana”.  There will never be Ohio OVI cases with blood or urine tests showing a concentration of “marihuana” because blood and urine tests do not identify or measure “marihuana”.  Instead, they identify and measure THC metabolites.

Continue Reading

One of the most frequently asked questions for criminal defense attorneys is about the impact of Miranda warnings. A previous article in this blog explained the holding of the Miranda case. After the publication of that article, the United States Supreme Court decided a Miranda-related case which affects investigations in Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

Interrogation

The case of Salinas v. Texas came in a bit under the radar. This Supreme Court decision regarding the protection against self-incrimination did not receive much media attention, and I did not hear it discussed much among lawyers at the courthouses. Although it was not widely publicized, Salinas could have an impact in Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

To understand the significance of Salinas, one must first understand Miranda v. Arizona. The holding of the Miranda case seems to be one of the most misunderstood aspects of American criminal justice. As explained in this blog’s 2012 article (“But The Officer Never Read Me My Rights”), the holding of the Miranda case is this: if a suspect is questioned while in custody, the suspect’s statements are not admissible in court unless the officer gives Miranda warnings. Another result of Miranda is this: if a suspect chooses to remain silent, the prosecution cannot comment on the defendant’s silence at trial.

Continue Reading

DUI/OVI cases are litigated within a framework of rules. Some of those rules regulate the exchange of evidence between the prosecution and the defense. That exchange of evidence is the ‘discovery’ process. The rules for discovery are found in state and federal law, and the intricacies of the rules are fleshed-out in court decisions interpreting the rules. A prosecutorial violation of the discovery rules may significantly impact a DUI/OVI case.

Lawyers speaking with judge

An example of a prosecutorial discovery violation comes from a New Jersey police officer’s drunk driving case. In that case, the off-duty officer was charged with driving under the influence after crashing through the wall of a store, according to NJ.com. His attorney requested discovery from the prosecutor, including a copy of the manual for the blood-testing procedure and audio recordings of police communications related to the case.

Seven months after the discovery request was made, the prosecution had not provided the manual or the audio recordings. The defense attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case, and the judge gave the prosecution one month to provide the requested materials. Three months later, the prosecution had not given the materials to the defense attorney, and the judge dismissed the case. Although the case occurred in New Jersey, I would expect a similar result in Ohio.

Continue Reading

When authorities found Donna Wardell in her Chevrolet Impala, the car was upside-down, held in the air by part of the utility pole she just hit (see the story at app.com).  Medics pulled her out of the car through the windshield and rushed her to the hospital.  The medical team determined the crash was the result of a seizure caused by a brain tumor.  Wardell did not know about the tumor:  she learned of it in the hospital.  She later learned something else:  she was being charged with DWI because, when the medics removed Wardell from her car, they observed the odor of alcohol.

Ambulance at accident scene

The odor of alcohol.  Based on that evidence alone, a police officer charged Wardell with DWI (called OVI in Ohio).  It was the only evidence suggesting Wardell might be under the influence of alcohol.  Upon closer examination, however, the odor of alcohol really is not evidence she was under the influence.  At most, it’s evidence she consumed alcohol.  There is no way to tell from the odor how much alcohol she consumed and whether that alcohol was affecting her ability to drive.

Her ability to drive was not affected by alcohol, as there was essentially no alcohol in her blood.  A toxicology report showed her blood alcohol concentration was .001.  At that level, the alcohol did not cause the crash.  Another hospital record concluded the crash was the result of a medical accident:  a seizure caused by the tumor.

Continue Reading

It’s Independence Day. We’re celebrating our freedom, and we’re celebrating everything which makes the U.S.A. a great nation. One thing which makes this nation great is it’s ultimately governed by laws, not people. The framework for our laws is the Constitution, and the part of the Constitution which guarantees much of the freedom we’re celebrating today is the Bill Of Rights. The founders of this nation put their lives on the line for that freedom. Soldiers in our military protect the country and preserve our freedom from foreign oppression. But who is protecting our freedom from domestic oppression and preserving the liberties promised by the Bill Of Rights?

Flag of United States

We enjoy our individual rights. We don’t want law enforcement breaking into our homes and seizing our possessions without a warrant: we want the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. We don’t want officers beating suspects until they confess: we want the freedom from self-incrimination. We don’t want the government summarily convicting people of crimes in a one-sided secret proceeding: we want a public trial by jury in which the process is fair.

 

To deter the government from violating Constitutional rights, we use the exclusionary rule. If officers break into a defendant’s house and seize the murder weapon without a warrant, testimony regarding that murder weapon is excluded from trial. If an officer beats a suspect until he confesses, that confession is excluded from trial. The immediate result may be the defendant whose rights were violated is acquitted of a crime he committed. The long-term result is law enforcement is generally deterred from violating citizens’ individual rights.

Continue Reading

Suppose you are driving around Columbus on I-270 and an officer pulls you over for speeding. The officer gets out of his cruiser and walks up to your car. When the officer reaches your window, you see on his uniform he is from the Cincinnati Police Department. ‘That’s odd’, you think, ‘why is an officer from Cincinnati making a traffic stop in Columbus?’ Good question. A better question is this: does that traffic stop violate your Constitutional rights?

Officer holding cell phoneAn officer from the Cincinnati Police Department does not have statutory authority to make a traffic stop for a minor misdemeanor in Columbus. According to Ohio statutory law, an officer only has such authority within the geographic boundaries of the political subdivision employing the officer. Therefore, the Cincinnati officer’s stop for a minor traffic offense in Columbus violates Ohio law. The question still remains whether the officer’s violation of the law is also a violation of the driver’s Constitutional rights.

The answer is ‘yes’, according to the Ohio Supreme Court. In a decision released a few days ago, the Court held a traffic stop for a minor misdemeanor offense made without statutory authority to do so violates Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. While the stop may not violate the United States Constitution, it violates the Ohio Constitution.

Continue Reading