We here at the Dominy Law Firm are big fans of the classic game show “Jeopardy”. With the fast-paced trivia challenge and Alex Trebek’s unmatched gravitas, there is little not to like. We are also big fans of the Constitutional protection against Double Jeopardy. This protection is enshrined in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. It prevents people from being prosecuted for a crime more than once or being punished multiple times for the same conduct. The protection against double jeopardy occasionally is used as a defense in DUI cases (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio).
A semi rolled-over and spilled about 11,000 salmon onto the highway. As the fish flopped around on the road, the truck driver was charged with DUI. But it turned-out he had ‘auto-brewery syndrome’, a condition in which his body makes its own alcohol. This condition is rare but has been identified many times. For a person charged with DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio) who drank no alcohol, auto-brewery syndrome may be responsible.
There is a difference between what generally ‘makes sense’ and what is sufficient evidence in court. In a recent Ohio DUI/OVI case, the prosecution’s failure to prove all the elements of an offense resulted in one conviction being reversed and probably should have resulted in a second conviction being reversed as well. This case from an Ohio court of appeals also illustrates important lessons for litigating DUI/OVI cases involving drugs.
In my experience as a criminal defense attorney, I have seen countless cases which began as simple traffic stops but escalated quickly into something far more complicated. Those more complicated cases often result from the officer searching my client’s vehicle and finding something illegal. Frequently, the officer’s search is based on the driver’s consent to the search. But what if the officer asks to search the vehicle and the driver doesn’t explicitly say yes or no? This question was answered in a recent appellate decision, and the answer can impact Ohio DUI/OVI cases.
Almost everyone will be involved in a car accident at some point in their lives. When a collision occurs, your first concern is probably safety. The last thing going through your mind is what exactly the law requires you to do after the accident. Failing to take the many steps required by Ohio law can result in a charge of leaving the scene of an accident, more commonly referred to as hit-skip. These charges can result in a license suspension, a jail term, driver license points, and a hefty fine. The penalties are so harsh partly because prosecutors and judges assume a hit-skip driver was probably guilty of drunk driving (called OVI in Ohio). So how strictly must the law be followed? The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a decision which addresses this question.
Technological devices are used to measure both speed and breath alcohol concentration. In court, the results of those devices are introduced to prove defendants are guilty of speeding or DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). As the government has the burden of proving a defendant’s guilt, one would expect the government would have the obligation to prove the measurement device produced an accurate result. A recent decision of the Ohio Supreme Court permits judges and juries to presume the measurement devices are accurate.
If another driver becomes angry with you, that driver can easily call the police and report you as a drunk driver. The driver doesn’t have to give a statement to the police. In fact, the allegation can be completely anonymous.
Should police officers be permitted to stop you based only on another person’s anonymous tip? That question will be answered by the Ohio Supreme Court, as it recently agreed to hear the case of State v. Tidwell. The case could have broad implications, not for not just OVI cases, but for individuals’ Fourth Amendment protections in general.
Over the past few months, courts in Central Ohio took a variety of steps to deal with the unprecedented challenges presented by the Coronavirus Pandemic. As the State of Ohio moves toward ‘reopening’ in this new reality, central Ohio courts are beginning to release plans on how they will operate in a way which will minimize the risk to court personnel, judges, attorneys and others with business before the court. Some courts have decided to publish their plans for reopening even before the release of the Supreme Court’s guidelines. Not every court has released such plans yet, so we will update this post as more information becomes available.
In Ohio DUI/OVI cases, the prosecution sometimes introduces expert testimony. If a prosecutor intends to do so, the prosecutor must provide the defense attorney with a written report summarizing the expert’s testimony. According to the Ohio discovery rules, the report must be disclosed to defense counsel at least 21 days prior to trial. What happens when the report does not contain all the expert’s testimony or isn’t provided timely? A recent decision from the Ohio Supreme Court answers that question.
Imagine for a minute that your car is in the shop. You have some errands to run, so you borrow someone else’s car. A friend, a family member, a coworker, whomever. As you’re driving to the store, you see a police cruiser activate its lights and sirens to pull you over. You weren’t speeding, you didn’t drive over the lane line, you followed every traffic rule in the book. So why are you being pulled over? The officer walks up to your window and says you were stopped because the officer ran the car’s license plate and learned the registered owner of the car had their license revoked. The officer didn’t make any effort to determine whether that registered owner was actually driving the car: he just saw the revocation and pulled you over.
Is the officer allowed to do this?