Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney BlogIn Miami, there’s nothing strange or tragic about a police officer riding down the beach on an ATV. What makes this incident strange is the on-duty officer is taking a female passenger on a joyride while he’s on duty. What makes this incident tragic is the officer plows into two pedestrians and severely injures both.
Articles Posted in DUI/OVI blood/breath/urine tests
Ohio Judge Rules Intoxilyzer 8000 Evidence Inadmissible
The last post of this blog discussed the Gerome case in Athens, Ohio. In that case, which is still pending, the judge will make decisions about the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 and whether a defendant must be given an opportunity to challenge the breath test’s general reliability at trial. In a similar case in Circleville, Ohio, the judge recently ruled that evidence from the Intoxilyzer 8000 is not even reliable enough to be introduced as evidence at trial.
Intoxilyzer 8000 Case May Open Door To Challenging Breath Tests In Ohio
In previous posts, this blog has discussed two separate but related issues. The post on May 3, 2010 explained that defendants in Ohio O.V.I. cases do not have the ability to challenge the general reliability of breath testing machines at trial due to the holding in State v. Vega. The post on May 29, 2010 described how the Ohio Department of Health purchased 700 Intoxilyzer 8000 breath testing machines and is implementing use of the machines throughout Ohio. This post ties together those two issues because a case in Athens County involving the Intoxilyzer 8000 may open the door to challenges regarding the general reliability of breath tests.
Should I Take The Breath Test In An Ohio OVI Case?
As a D.U.I. defense attorney, this is one of the most frequently asked questions I receive (second only to “how can you do that?”). The answer is surprisingly complicated: it depends on factors that include how much alcohol you drank, whether you are more concerned about the short-term or long-term status of your driver’s license, whether you have prior convictions, whether you’re on probation, and whether you have a commercial driver’s license.
Ohio Court Says Forced Blood Draws Are Constitutional
Historically, if a driver refused to give a sample of blood, breath or urine, the driver’s license would immediately be suspended for refusing, but there would be no alcohol test to use as evidence against the driver. Things changed in 2009, when the Ohio legislature passed a law saying, if a person with prior O.V.I. convictions refuses to submit to a chemical test, “the law enforcement officer who made the request may employ whatever reasonable means are necessary to ensure that the person submits to a chemical test of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.” R.C. 4511.191(A)(5).
Hope Of Challenging Critical Evidence In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases
The last post for this blog discussed the defendant’s right to confront and cross examine the people responsible for the chemical test that determines a defendant’s blood alcohol level. On one hand, the United States Supreme Court strengthened this confrontation right in Melendez-Diaz. On the other hand, an Ohio court of appeals in State v. Collins later held it is not a violation of the defendant’s confrontation rights to admit records at the motion hearing regarding maintenance of the breath-testing machine without the testimony of the person that maintained it. This post addresses a case decided after the Collins decision.
No Right To Challenge The Most Critical Evidence In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases?
Imagine a case in which the defendant is not permitted to challenge the most critical evidence. For example, imagine a products liability case in which the plaintiff says, “we know the product was defective because we did scientific testing which showed it was defective.” The defendant would challenge the scientific testing through cross examination to show why the plaintiff’s test was unreliable. In OVI cases in Ohio, the prosecution often introduces a scientific chemical test to prove the defendant’s concentration of blood, breath, or urine. The defense, however, is prohibited from challenging the general reliability of those chemical tests due to State v. Vega (see blog entry May 3, 2010).
My First Case With The Ohio Intoxilyzer 8000
In a previous post, I discussed the Intoxilyzer 8000. The Ohio Department of Health made a controversial purchase of 7000 of these breath-testing machines, and a few are being used in central Ohio D.U.I./O.V.I. cases. In the previous post, I said I would give developments from my first 8000 case.
The Intoxilyzer 8000 In Central Ohio
Breath-testing machines have been used for O.V.I. (D.U.I.) in Ohio for decades. Until recently, the breath-testing instruments approved by the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) were the BAC Datamaster and the Intoxilyzer 5000. In 2009, the Ohio Department of Health approved the use of the Intoxilyzer 8000. In addition, the ODH purchased 700 Intoxilyzer 8000s, at a cost of $6.4 million, to be used throughout the state.
When Does “Expired” Not Really Mean “Expired” In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases?
A police officer is only authorized to administer breath tests in O.V.I. (D.U.I.) cases if the officer has a valid operator’s permit issued by the Ohio Department of Health. To obtain an operator permit, an officer must complete a basic operator training course. Operator permits expire one year after the permit’s issue date, and an officer can apply to renew a permit up to six months before it expires. To renew a permit, an officer must complete an in-service renewal course. These regulations are contained in chapter 3701-53 of the Ohio Administrative Code. A breath test is only admissible if the operator had a valid permit.