I recently had the pleasure of being interviewed by Grant Eagle on his podcast “5 Minute Legal Insights”. It actually lasted for ten minutes, and I was just getting warmed up! We discussed common misconceptions about DUI/OVI stops, arrests, and court cases. You can listen to the podcast here, and you can also find it on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and Stitcher.
The consequences of an OVI/DUI conviction can go well beyond the fines, jail time, and license suspensions imposed by a Judge. Collateral effects like higher insurance premiums and lost employment opportunities can follow someone well after their case has been resolved in court. Some states, even notoriously tough-on-crime states like Texas, allow first-time OVI/DUI offenders to avoid the long term consequences of a conviction by completing a pretrial diversion program.
What is Diversion?
The general idea of diversion is that first offenders should be given an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and correct the underlying causes of their criminal offense without the stigma of a conviction. If an applicant meets the entry requirements, typically meaning the person has no prior criminal history and is charged with a qualifying offense, the applicant can be accepted into a diversion program. These programs typically require the participant to complete counseling and/or educational courses, perform community service, attend regular meetings with a probation/diversion officer, and maintain a clean criminal record for the duration of the program.
Many jurisdictions have diversion programs, covering a variety of offenses. The specifics of the programs vary depending on the jurisdiction and the offense. For example, the Texas program allows first-time DUI offenders with otherwise clean records to complete a year of probation supervision which includes monthly meetings, community service, drug/alcohol counseling, and the installation of an ignition interlock device on their vehicles. Successful completion of this year-long program results in the DUI charges being dismissed, which means they are able to move forward without a conviction on their record.
After having an office on Polaris Parkway for several years, the Dominy Law Firm has relocated. Our new office is off Route 315 just north of 270: near Hills Market and the bike trail. The new location is perfect for serving clients with OVI / DUI cases in Columbus, Delaware and courts throughout central Ohio. Our new address is:
It turns out the criminal defense lawyers were not the only group gathering in Myrtle Beach. It was bike week. Harley Davidson bike week to be precise. Thousands of bikers rolled in to cruise the strip, and a small percentage participated in drag racing, drunk driving and disorderly conduct. While some people were in the tourist town breaking the law, others were there learning about the law. I was in the latter group.
I was there for the Sunshine Seminar presented by the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL). This is an annual continuing education seminar and retreat for OACDL members. The seminar portion of the event is held in the mornings on Thursday and Friday (in a meeting room overlooking the beach), and the remainder of the time is the ‘retreat’.
Cyber Security And Client Competency
The seminar included an interesting presentation on cyber security. I, like many others, believed small business owners need not be especially concerned about being the victim of cyber crimes. However, the speaker explained small businesses, including law firms, are, in fact, targeted by hackers. He also discussed some relatively simple ways to avoid being a victim. A wildebeest does not have the be the fastest in the herd; just not the slowest. Similarly, a small law firm does not need to be super cyber secure; it just needs to not be the low-hanging fruit for cyber criminals.
I thought it was dead. In the jurisdictions where I handle OVI cases, I had not seen the Intoxilyzer 8000 used for years. To my surprise, I recently received discovery materials which showed my client’s breath test was done on an I-8000. Given the challenges faced by this machine when it was first brought to life in Ohio, I thought the State may let it rest in peace.
The Life And Death Of The Intoxilyzer 8000 In Ohio
In 2009, Ohio spent about $6.5 million to purchase hundreds of Intoxilyzer 8000 machines. The purchase of the machines was controversial, as the State chose to purchase those machines rather than the BAC Datamaster, which was manufactured in Ohio. Adding to the controversy was the fact that the head of the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Testing (Dean Ward) was close friends with the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 8000: CMI. In fact, Dean Ward later retired and went to work for CMI.
As the new machines were rolled out in counties across Ohio, defense lawyers challenged their reliability. In the 2011 case of State v. Gerome, several expert witnesses testified for and against the I-8000. The judge ultimately decided the results of the tests on the I-8000 could be used as evidence, but that evidence could be challenged in various ways. In the wake of Gerome, the attacks on the reliability of the I-8000 continued throughout the state.
I have attended this DUI seminar in Vegas annually for about 15 years. One might think it would grow stale. It doesn’t. While the co-sponsors of the seminar are the same each year, the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), there are always different speakers and themes. This year’s theme was ‘Grand Slam Defenses’.
The lead-off batter was Bill Kirk with ‘Cross-Examination: The Lawyer’s Opportunity To Testify’. Kirk was spot-on when he urged attendees to improve cross-examination by doing three things: (1) adopt methods which have worked for others; (2) use your own style; and (3) practice and ask for constructive criticism. Throughout my career, I have studied trial techniques in books and borrowed successful trial tactics from other lawyers. As Kirk recommends, I have incorporated the techniques which are effective and consistent with my style. I have given the same advice to many attendees as an instructor at the OACDL trial skills workshops.
Another major league presentation was Deja Vishny’s ‘What Online Dating Taught Me About Jury De-Selection’. Vishny gave the traditional advice of gearing the voir dire toward one’s theory of the case. However, she recommended asking questions to de-select jurors rather than seeking information to help select jurors. Vishny also provided examples of methods for meaningful dialogue with prospective jurors. Her presentation included specific phrases for questions, using sliding-scale questions, and using questions which frame a challenge for cause.
After years of working as a first officer for a commercial airline, Andrea is finally about to become a captain. To celebrate, she goes to dinner with friends and has a couple drinks. On the way home, she forgets to signal a right turn, and an officer stops her. The officer smells alcohol and has Andrea perform field sobriety tests. The officer says he notices ‘clues’ on the tests and arrests Andrea for DUI (called OVI in Ohio). As the cuffs go on, all she can think about is what will happen to her pilot’s license and her career.
Legal Turbulence For The Pilot And Her Attorney
It seems logical that a pilot’s license would only be jeopardized if the pilot is convicted of OVI. What makes sense logically is not always what occurs with the federal government. And it is the federal government, specifically the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has responsibility for pilot (“airman”) licenses. The FAA will, in fact, impose sanctions for an OVI conviction. But there are other infractions, not obvious to attorneys, for which pilots could crash and burn.
I have been attending this DUI / OVI seminar since its modern inception in 2002. For five years before that, I practiced all varieties of criminal defense, with a focus on serious felonies. I didn’t think OVI defense was as complex as cases like murder, robbery and burglary. The seminar in 2002 showed me I was wrong. Shortly after that seminar, I decided to make OVI the focus of my practice. Fast forward 16 years, and I co-chaired this year’s two-day seminar presented by the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL). I was primarily responsible for the first day, which means my job was to introduce the speakers without drooling or stuttering.
The seminar got off to a great start with a presentation by Mimi Coffey from Texas. Mimi is board certified in DUI Defense, has twice completed the Borkenstein course at Indiana University, and is a regent with the National College for DUI Defense (NCDD). She discussed how to win an OVI case involving a breath test. Her discussion included favorable case law, important scientific principles and helpful litigation strategies.
The next speaker was Lauren Stuckert from Wisconsin. Lauren is the nation’s youngest lawyer to become board certified in DUI Defense. She discussed the analysis of blood and urine. The first part of her lecture focused on the analysis of alcohol, and the second part focused on the analysis of other drugs. Lauren included a spotlight on marijuana, as there is a growing number of Ohio OVI cases involving marijuana which will only increase with the legalization of medical marijuana.
During a recent OVI jury trial, the judge and I disagreed about the function of standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs). During a sidebar, I argued the tests do not measure driving impairment; they predict blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The judge’s opinion was SFSTs measure impairment of driving ability. The judge’s opinion prevailed, despite being wrong, because the judge’s opinion always prevails in the judge’s courtroom (unless and until an appellate court says otherwise). This particular judge is intelligent, well-intentioned, and better educated on DUI/OVI issues than most judges and lawyers. If this judge misunderstands the purpose of SFSTs, it’s a topic worth addressing.
A Very Brief History Of Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
Before the introduction of SFSTs, law enforcement officers used a variety of non-standardized tests to help them decide whether to arrest a person for drunk driving. Beginning in 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), sponsored research which resulted in the development of standardized field sobriety tests. That research also led to the NHTSA manual: “DWI Detection And Standardized Field Sobriety Testing”.
Subsequent to the original publication of the manual, NHTSA conducted multiple validation studies. Those studies have evaluated the SFSTs in various environments and have examined multiple factors affecting the tests. The reports from the studies are clear: what’s being evaluated is the effectiveness of the SFSTs to predict BAC, not driving impairment.
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.
There Are Rules For Imposing License Suspensions
The case is Toledo v. Ferguson. Ferguson was stopped and given field sobriety tests. The police officer charged Ferguson with OVI and imposed an A.L.S. For the A.L.S., the officer completed a BMV 2255 report and sent a copy to the court. However, the report was sent to the court six days after the arrest, and Ohio Revised Code section 4511.192(E) requires that the report be sent “as soon as possible, but not later than 48 hours after the arrest.” Ferguson’s lawyer filed an appeal of the A.L.S. on the ground the BMV 2255 report was not timely filed. The trial court refused to terminate the A.L.S., so Ferguson appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals.
Government Claims There Is No Remedy For Violating Rules
The prosecution argued the officer’s violation of the 48-hour requirement is not a ground for terminating the A.L.S. Ohio Revised Code section 4511.197 establishes the parameters for A.L.S. appeals. That section establishes four bases for appealing the A.L.S. In Ferguson, the prosecution argued that, because the 48-hour rule is not one of those four bases, violation of the 48-hour rule cannot result in termination of the A.L.S. The trial court agreed with the prosecution.