DUI/OVI lawyering

December 13, 2014

What Is The Irony Of Urine Testing In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases?

Most states acknowledge urine testing is not an accurate way to measure blood alcohol concentration, and Ohio is one of the few states which still uses urine alcohol testing for DUI/OVI cases. Ohio law makes urine tests admissible in court so long as law enforcement agencies follow state regulations. Some of those regulations address scientific reliability, and some of those regulations address administrative issues. As a result, urine tests are often inadmissible, not because they are scientifically unreliable, but because the government did not follow its own rules.

November 30, 2014

You Don’t Want A Ride From ARIDE Officers

by Shawn Dominy

If you get a ride from an ARIDE officer, it’s because you’ve been arrested for DUI/OVI. The acronym stands for Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, and ARIDE is a course which some police officers complete to improve at investigating and prosecuting Ohio DUI/OVI cases involving drugs. To better understand what officers are learning at ARIDE, I recently completed the program myself, and I expect it to improve my effectiveness in defending cases involving driving under the influence of drugs.

November 15, 2014

Acid Reflux And Breath Tests In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

Somewhere between ten percent and twenty percent of Americans have GERD: Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease. While the advertisements by pharmaceutical companies have made GERD common knowledge, it is no so commonly known that this medical condition can inflate the result of an alcohol breath test. When the defendant in an OVI case has GERD, lawyers and judges find themselves at the intersection of law and science.

October 5, 2014

Unanimous Supreme Court Reinforces Defendant’s Right To Challenge Breath Test Results In Ohio DUI/OVI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

For three decades, lawyers and judges have been misinterpreting the case of State v. Vega. In Vega, the Ohio Supreme Court held defendants in DUI/OVI cases may not attack the general reliability of breath-testing machines. Some lawyers and judges interpret Vega as if it says defendants are not permitted to make any challenge to the breath test result. This misinterpretation of the Vega decision may exist in part because most people have not actually read the decision. It’s like the telephone game where the statement made by the first person in the game is modified drastically by the time the statement is repeated by the last person in the game. A few days ago, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the holding of Vega in a case which will hopefully end the abuse of defendants’ rights resulting from the misinterpretation of Vega.

August 23, 2014

New Book Provides Readers With Valuable Information About DUI/OVI In Ohio

by Shawn Dominy

It won’t win a Pulitzer Prize, it will not be mentioned with the New York Times best sellers, and it will not be at the top of readers’ ‘wish lists’. In fact, most people may not find it very interesting. If you are charged with a DUI/OVI in Ohio, however, this book suddenly becomes a must-read. I’m talking about the new book: I Was Charged With DUI/OVI, Now What?!

April 30, 2014

Right To Speedy Trial In Ohio DUI/OVI Case Violated By Court’s Delayed Ruling On Motion To Suppress

by Shawn Dominy

In Ohio DUI/OVI cases, calculating speedy trial time can be complex. As a general rule, the trial must be held within 90 days of the arrest or summons. There are, however, many exceptions to this general rule. When one of the exceptions occurs, time is “tolled” (that time does not count toward the 90-day limit). One exception occurs when the defendant files a motion for discovery, and another exception occurs when the defendant files a motion to suppress evidence. A recent decision by an Ohio Court of Appeals addresses the application of speedy trial laws to Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

April 19, 2014

Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements For Motions To Suppress In Ohio DUI/OV Cases

by Shawn Dominy

Two days ago, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying how specific a motion to suppress must be for the defendant to receive an evidentiary hearing on the motion. In State v. Codeluppi (2014), the Court concluded: “[A] highly detailed pleading of the facts and law is not required to satisfy the Shindler notice requirements and to trigger the right to a hearing on the motion to suppress.” This conclusion affirmed the Court’s decision from a decade ago in State v. Shindler (1994). The Codeluppi decision hopefully will end uncertainty about the specificity required for motions to suppress in Ohio DUI/OVI cases.

November 9, 2013

DUI / OVI In Ohio Juvenile Courts

by Shawn Dominy

Juvenile DUI.gif

I recently represented a client for a DUI / OVI in a juvenile court near Columbus, Ohio. The case went to trial, and I was sharing my experience with a colleague. The colleague happened to be coordinating a DUI / OVI seminar for the Columbus Bar Association, and he asked me to speak at the seminar on the topic of handling DUI / OVI cases in juvenile court. The topic is a good one because most attorneys do not regularly represent clients for DUI / OVI in juvenile court, and there are some differences between juvenile cases and adult cases.

August 31, 2013

State v. Lancaster May Change Interpretation Of Ohio Breath Testing Law

by Shawn Dominy

Intoxilyzer 8000 Declared Unreliable In Ohio DUI/OVI Case
This blog has discussed Intoxilyzer 8000 litigation in many previous posts. One of those posts (November 18, 2012) mentioned the case of State v. Lancaster in the Marietta Municipal Court. I was asked to help with that litigation as counsel for Lancaster. Like many of the I-8000 cases throughout Ohio, the Lancaster case involves the reliability of the I-8000. Unlike most of the other cases, however, the Lancaster case includes testimony of expert witnesses for the prosecution and defense. After five days of testimony, the verdict is in, and the breath test is out! The decision has already been appealed and is staged to possibly change the interpretation of breath-testing law in Ohio.

June 8, 2013

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Discovery Obligations In DUI/OVI Cases

by Shawn Dominy

Video-camera-in-cruiser-300x256 For the second time in two months, the Ohio Supreme Court decided a case interpreting the discovery rules that apply to Ohio DUI/OVI cases and criminal cases. A previous post in this blog discussed ‘recent’ changes to the rules for discovery, the exchange of evidence between the prosecution and defense. In March of 2013, the Ohio Supreme Court decided the case of State v. Darmond and addressed how sanctions are to be imposed for violations of the discovery rules. In May of 2013, the Court issued a decision addressing when the obligation of providing discovery is triggered for the defense.