In a previous post, this blog questioned whether police should be able to draw blood against your will without a search warrant. At that time, oral arguments had recently been held in the case of Missouri v. McNeely. A few days ago, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the McNeely case. Based on that decision, the Constitutionality of the law for forced blood tests in Ohio O.V.I. cases is questionable.
How are sanctions to be imposed for violations of Ohio’s discovery rules? That question was the subject of a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. In a previous post, this blog described the changes to the rules for discovery (exchanging evidence) in Ohio criminal and D.U.I./O.V.I. cases. In a case decided a couple weeks ago, the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted the new discovery rules for the first time.
Trooper Mark Winder stopped Tyler McNeely for speeding and observed the usual trilogy of intoxication signs: odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. Winder gave McNeely field sobriety tests and arrested him for driving while intoxicated. The trooper drove McNeely to a hospital and asked McNeely to give a blood sample. McNeely declined. Without obtaining or even seeking a warrant, the trooper had a lab technician take a blood sample from McNeely while McNeely was restrained. The blood sample was later analyzed, and it was determined that the concentration of alcohol in the blood was .154.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution has been the subject of a series of modern cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. Last month, the Court issued its latest interpretation of a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. The new case, Williams v. Illinois, leads to Confrontation Clause confusion.
After three weeks of trial and nine days of deliberation, the jury found John Edwards Not Guilty on one charge and could not reach a unanimous verdict on the other five charges involving campaign finance fraud. Similar to the O.J. Simpson trial, the verdict and the jurors have been the subject of controversy and criticism. What the critics should grasp, and don’t seem to, is this: “not guilty” means “not proven”; it doesn’t mean “innocent”.
On December 3, 2011, Randy Babbitt was the head of the United States Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.). Three days later, Babbitt was the former head of the F.A.A. In those three days, Babbitt was charged with a D.U.I. that led to his resignation.
Every television-watching American knows about Miranda v. Arizona, and most have the following misunderstanding about criminal law (including O.V.I./D.U.I. law): “The officer never issued Miranda warnings; doesn’t that mean they have to dismiss my case?”
No. That’s not what it means.
As an O.V.I./D.U.I. attorney, the Constitutional issues I regularly deal with involve the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure), the Fifth Amendment (double jeopardy, self-incrimination, due process), and the Sixth Amendment (trial rights). O.V.I. cases, and this blog, typically do not include First Amendment topics. However, an Ohio court’s ruling has peaked my interest.
William Kral’s inability to hear made it very difficult for him to communicate with his attorney when he was charged with D.U.I. in the state of Washington. At his arraignment, he was assisted by an unqualified sign language interpreter that led him to believe the document he was signing was a continuance. The document was really a waiver of his right to a speedy trial. Six years later, Kral’s conviction was finally overturned, as reported by The News Tribune.
Occasionally, evidence in Ohio O.V.I. (D.U.I.) cases comes from a blood sample taken at a hospital. When the blood sample is obtained in a hospital setting, issues arise regarding the admissibility of the blood test. One issue is whether the suspect’s consent to giving the blood sample is valid. For the second time in a year, a court of appeals has concluded that a defendant’s consent to a blood draw was not valid because it was not made knowingly and voluntarily.
Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog