DUI/OVI laws and cases

August 13, 2016

Weakening Of Exclusionary Rule Could Affect Ohio DUI/OVI Cases

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.

May 21, 2016

Ohio Drugged Driving Law: Must Be Nexus Between Drug And Driving Impairment

by Shawn Dominy

The only presumption permitted in an Ohio DUI/OVI trial is the presumption the defendant is not guilty. In a case alleging drugged driving, the prosecution must prove the defendant ingested a drug, and the prosecution must prove the defendant’s ability to drive was impaired. Finally, as a recent case illustrates, the prosecution must prove causation: the impaired driving ability was caused by ingesting the drug.

May 14, 2016

False Arrest Claims – Your Options After The DUI/OVI Case Is Over

by Shawn Dominy

I have recently had the privilege of working on OVI cases with attorney Eric Holloway. In addition to OVI defense, Eric also represents clients in civil rights cases, including cases involving false arrest. As a follow-up to the last blog entry, ‘Uncovering False Arrests In DUI/OVI Cases’, I asked Eric to summarize the options of a person falsely arrested for OVI. Eric agreed to be a guest blogger and prepared the remainder of this article.

March 26, 2016

Person Medically Incapable Of Urinating Is Not ‘Refusing’ The Test

by Shawn Dominy

A judge in Columbus, Ohio found a man to be in violation of probation because the man was unable to urinate upon request. The judge was aware the defendant, Mr. Hand, had medical problems which caused urinary difficulties and was taking medication designed to increase his urination. Nevertheless, the judge concluded Mr. Hand’s inability to urinate constituted a “refusal” to submit to a urine test. Individuals placed on probation for DUI/OVI in Ohio do not have this kind of experience, ordinarily. But this was no ordinary case.

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.

February 20, 2016

Refrigerating Blood And Urine Samples In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

When a person is arrested for DUI/OVI in Ohio, the arresting officer typically asks the person to submit to a breath, blood or urine test. For a test result to be admissible in court, the test must be administered in compliance with regulations issued by the Ohio Department of Health. One regulation requires refrigeration of blood and urine samples, and that regulation was the subject of a recent case decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.

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?

January 16, 2016

When Are Miranda Warnings Required In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases?

by Shawn Dominy

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.

December 26, 2015

When Can Tickets Be Amended In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases?

by Shawn Dominy

At the last minute, without warning, the government convicted Demetrius of a more serious offense than with which he was originally charged. Demetrius received a ticket for OVI. The ticket informed him he was charged with a low-tier ‘per se’ OVI, which carries a minimum of three days in jail and does not involve mandatory restricted (yellow) license plates. Just before his case was finished, the court permitted the prosecution to change the charge to a high-tier ‘per se’ OVI, which carries a minimum of six days in jail and mandatory yellow license plates. Can the government to that?