DUI/OVI Constitutional issues

June 30, 2017

Arrest Theorem For Ohio DUI/OVI Cases: FST ≠ PC

FST-does-not-equal-PC-300x158 Fourth amendment law does not lend itself to mathematical formulas. Rather than using equations to decide Constitutional issues, courts look at the totality of the circumstances and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. This is particularly true when it comes to the issue of whether an officer had probable cause to justify an arrest. However, one theorem illustrated by a recent Ohio OVI case is this: clues on Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) does not equal Probable Cause (PC).

May 27, 2017

Should We Use The Textalyzer to Combat Distracted Driving In Ohio?

by Shawn Dominy

Stop-texting-while-driving-300x200

The last entry in this blog discussed the movement to decrease distracted driving in the United States. Using cell phones while driving appears to be increasingly problematic. In response, states are criminalizing the behavior, and groups like the Partnership For Distraction-Free Driving and the Distracted Driving Project are mounting campaigns which encourage drivers to not multi-task while driving. Another idea to combat distracted driving is use of the ‘Textalyzer’.

April 29, 2017

When Government Breaks Rules For Ohio Administrative License Suspensions

by Shawn Dominy

Rules-and-Regulations-300x278

There are few instances when the government can take our property without first holding a hearing. An Ohio Administrative License Suspension (A.L.S.) is one of those instances. If a driver refuses a chemical test or tests ‘over the limit’, an officer takes the driver’s license on-the-spot. Accordingly, to protect drivers’ rights to due process of law, Ohio has rules which must be followed for an A.L.S to be imposed. A recent A.L.S. case in an Ohio Court of Appeals demonstrates what happens when the rules are not followed.

March 25, 2017

Ohio Appellate Court Holds Officer Did Not Have Probable Cause For OVI Arrest

by Shawn Dominy

Under-arrest-2-231x300

In Ohio, and throughout the United States, we have a Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In Ohio OVI cases, that means an officer can only arrest a suspect if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. In the recent case of State v. Bracken, the Court of Appeals concluded the arrest was not justified. Continue Reading

September 5, 2016

Ohio Administrative License Suspensions-Lesson #2

by Shawn Dominy

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.

August 13, 2016

Weakening Of Exclusionary Rule Could Affect Ohio DUI/OVI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

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.

June 30, 2016

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Constitutionality Of Warrantless Blood Tests And Breath Tests In DUI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

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.

April 23, 2016

Ohio DUI/OVI Refusal Law May Be Affected By Cases In U.S. Supreme Court

by Shawn Dominy

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.

February 27, 2016

Class Action Lawsuit Challenges DUI Administrative License Suspensions

by Shawn Dominy

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.

January 30, 2016

The Speedy Trial Clock In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases With Blood Or Urine Tests

by Shawn Dominy

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?