by

As discussed previously in this space, we have been eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin. The Court set out to determine whether Wisconsin’s Implied Consent statute requires police to obtain a search warrant before getting a blood sample from an unconscious DUI suspect. The state of Wisconsin argued that Mitchell, through the state’s Implied Consent statute, had already consented to the blood draw, thereby removing the requirement for a warrant. Alternatively, they argued this should simply be viewed as an exercise of the State’s power to imposes conditions on a person’s privilege to operate a vehicle on Wisconsin’s roads.

Blood-sample-300x202

In a 5-4 plurality decision, the Supreme Court disregarded both of these arguments and held the warrantless blood draw from an unconscious DUI suspect typically falls within the ‘exigent circumstances’ exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, so a search warrant is typically not required.

The Court’s Plurality Decision
Justice Alito wrote the opinion for himself, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Breyer and Justice Kavanaugh. The opinion first acknowledges that the Court held in the past the dissipation of alcohol in blood does not, in and of itself, trigger the exigent circumstances exception, so a search warrant is typically necessary for a blood test. However, the opinion then states the presence of other factors could put additional time constraints on the police. Based on this logic, Justice Alito created a new two-prong test to determine if a blood draw from a DUI suspect would fall within the exigency exception:

1) The alcohol in the suspect’s blood is dissipating; and
2) Some other factors create pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that take priority over a search warrant application.

The court also determined that, if a defendant shows their blood would not have been drawn but for the police collecting BAC evidence, the exigent circumstances exception would no longer apply, so a search warrant would be required. Because Mitchell was never able to make such a showing, the Court remanded the case back to Wisconsin state court to apply this new two-part test.

Continue Reading

by

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:

7716 Rivers Edge Drive, Suite B  Columbus, OH 43235

Map-of-DLF-office-300x231

 

Continue Reading

by

Ohio and Pennsylvania are two states which still prosecute drivers for DUI / OVI marijuana, even if the marijuana metabolites in the driver’s system are not affecting the person’s ability to drive. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s office recently announced it will not prosecute cannabis DUIs unless the driver has amounts of psychoactive THC which affect driving. Ohio prosecutors should consider implementing this policy.

Marijuana-and-key-300x190

Two Types Of DUI/OVI Laws In Ohio
Ohio’s two general types of OVI are OVI ‘impaired’ and OVI ‘per se’. For a charge of OVI ‘impaired’, the prosecution must prove that, at the time of operating the vehicle, the driver was ‘under the influence’ of alcohol and/or drugs. ‘Under the influence’ means the alcohol and/or drugs “affected the nervous system, brain or muscles of the defendant so as to impair, to a noticeable degree, his ability to operate the vehicle”.

For a charge of OVI ‘per se’ the prosecution must prove that, at the time of operating the vehicle, the driver had a prohibited concentration of alcohol or drugs in his breath, blood or urine. The prohibited concentration of alcohol is .08%. The prohibited concentration of marijuana metabolite is 35 nanograms per milliliter of urine or 50 nanograms per milliliter of blood.

Continue Reading

by

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.

Myrtle-Beach-2019-300x206

 

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.

Continue Reading

by

The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Mitchell v. Wisconsin. As this blog discussed previously, this the third case in a series of cases dealing with whether the police can take a DUI/OVI suspect’s blood without a search warrant. The questions and statements from the bench during the oral argument may telegraph how each justice views the issue. However, in our experience, it is difficult to predict the outcome of a case based on the oral arguments.

US-Supreme-Court-300x236

The Trilogy of Cases Involving Warrantless Blood Draws
In Missouri v. McNeely, the Court concluded the dissipation of alcohol in blood does not necessarily create an exigent circumstance, meaning a warrant is generally required to obtain a blood sample from a DUI/OVI suspect. They followed that decision with Birchfield v. North Dakota, concluding a warrantless breath test can be administered as a ‘search incident to arrest’, but a blood test still generally requires a warrant.

That brings us to the third piece of the puzzle, Mitchell v. Wisconsin. In that case, the defendant passed out before the police were able to administer a breath test. Relying on Wisconsin’s Implied Consent statute, the police took the defendant to the hospital and had his blood drawn without a warrant. Mitchell was convicted of the DUI charge; and appealed his conviction on the ground the blood draw was an unconstitutional violation of his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Continue Reading

by

Texting is arguably more dangerous than drunk driving. According to a study conducted by Car And Driver, a driver’s reaction time is worse while texting than while intoxicated. With nearly all drivers in possession of a cell phone, it seems likely many more people are driving while texting than driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. For decades, law enforcement has developed methods to detect drunk driving. Officers now need a way to detect texting while driving without violating individuals’ right to privacy. Is the new “Textalyzer” the answer?

Stop-Texting-300x200

Texting Laws And The Textalyzer
Nearly all states, including Ohio, now have laws prohibiting texting while driving. The state-wide ban in Ohio Revised Code section 4511.204 prohibits operating a motor vehicle ‘while using a handheld electronic communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication’. Another Ohio law, Revised Code section 4511.991, enhances the sentence of a traffic violation if distracted driving is a contributing factor to the commission of the offense. The problem is not prohibiting the conduct with a law: the problem is enforcing the law which prohibits the conduct. To address the difficulty of enforcing these laws, several states are considering laws which permit the use of a device like the Textalyzer.

The manufacturer of the Textalyzer, Cellebrite, says the device will help law enforcement officers prove whether a driver was using a mobile phone while driving. Officers would plug the device into the driver’s cell phone and scan the phone for recent activity. The device would tell officers when the phone was used for activities such as texting, Facebook messaging, and web browsing. Because the device can reportedly time-stamp the cell phone activity, officers would be able to determine whether the cell phone use was a factor in an accident or traffic violation.

Continue Reading

by

Brynn Campbell was involved in a head on-crash which killed the 83-year-old woman driving the other car. Campbell was taken to the hospital, and hospital staff performed a urine test. Although Campbell showed no obvious signs of impairment, a police officer went to the hospital and asked the nurse for the urine test results. The results showed Campbell’s alcohol level was well over the limit, according to the Global News. The officer then obtained a search warrant to obtain Campbell’s urine samples and have them tested. Campbell was charged with vehicular homicide. She was acquitted by the trial court, and the prosecution appealed.

Blood-draw-2-300x200

The issue for the appeal was whether the defendant’s rights were violated if the urine test results were introduced as evidence at the trial. The Court of Appeal ruled this was a breach of Campbell’s constitutional rights. The Court commented that the police conduct was serious and stated, “The police intentionally obtained information from hospital staff in breach of medical confidentiality and relied on that information to obtain a warrant that otherwise could not have been issued.” The Court of Appeal upheld Campbell’s acquittal.

What Would Ohio Do?
In Ohio, we have a pair of laws which address the issue of law enforcement officers obtaining alcohol/drug test results from health care providers. Ohio Revised Code section 2317.022 states an officer who wishes to obtain such records can make a written request to the health care facility. Ohio Revised Code section 2317.02 states that, if an officer makes such a request, the health care facility shall supply to requested records. That statute has an exception for situations in which providing the records is specifically prohibited by any Ohio or federal law.

Continue Reading

by

Anyone who has been charged with an OVI / DUI in Ohio has had the pleasure of listening to an officer read several paragraphs from the back of a form provided by the Ohio BMV. This often droll recitation is required by Ohio’s implied consent law, which says that anyone who operates a vehicle in the state implicitly consents to takes a blood/breath/urine test for drugs and/or alcohol if arrested for OVI. An implied consent law similar to Ohio’s was recently found to be unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court.

BMV-2255-back-232x300

The Georgia Case
That recent case is Elliot v. Georgia. In that case, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the state’s implied consent notice. Georgia’s notice is very similar to Ohio’s in form, with one major difference: Georgia’s includes a sentence stating “Your refusal to submit to the required testing may be offered into evidence against you at trial.” It was this sentence which led to the Georgia Supreme Court evaluating their implied consent law.

As part of their evaluation, the Court reviewed the history of case law in their state, as well as the evolution of their ten (yes, 10) different state constitutions. Based on this review, the Georgia Supreme Court held the provision allowing the prosecution to use an OVI defendant’s test refusal against them in court is unconstitutional. The Court ruled that using a defendant’s refusal as evidence against them violated the right against self-incrimination as provided by the Georgia State Constitution.

Continue Reading

by

The modern version of the OACDL annual DUI/OVI seminar began in 2002. That means this year we celebrate the 18th birthday of the seminar. I have attended every year, I have participated for many years, and I have been the co-chair for the past few years. Just like parents say about their children, I can’t believe it has been 18 years. Like a proud parent, I think this seminar has matured to be one of the best DUI seminars in the country. This year’s agenda featured too many speakers to name and too many presentations to summarize, but this article covers some of the highlights.

Learning From Non-Lawyers
We reintroduced a tee shirt this year with the slogan, “In God we trust…all others will be cross-examined”. Despite the warning on the throwback tee, we invited many non-lawyer speakers and did not cross examine any of them.

All-others-will-be-cross-examined-300x246

Joshua Ott (Atlanta) is a former police officer with vast experience and credentials in DUI investigations. He discussed what to look for when reviewing law enforcement videos from cruisers and body cams. His presentation highlighted issues which may arise during all phases of the DUI investigation, including the field sobriety tests.

Dr. Lee Polite (Chicago) is the president of Axion Labs, where he provides chromatography training for scientists from around the world. Dr. Polite taught the basics of gas chromatography, the method used to test blood and urine in Ohio DUI / OVI cases. I attended his three-day gas chromatography course in Chicago, and it was outstanding. Somehow, he did an amazing summary of that material in one hour.

Continue Reading

by

The credibility of a law enforcement officer makes a difference in court. Judges seem to presume officers are credible. Officers, however, can ruin their credibility with unprofessional conduct, uncorroborated claims, and unconfirmed clues. The trooper in a recent Franklin County case did just that, and it resulted in the court of appeals concluding the trooper’s arrest of the defendant was unlawful.

The case is State v. Simmons. The trooper clocked Simmons driving 57 mph in a 35 mph zone. The trooper did a U-turn, accelerated hard, and approached Simmons rapidly, without activating the cruiser lights or siren. In response, Simmons accelerated. The trooper chased Simmons at speeds exceeding 90 mph in a hilly area, and both crossed the center line or veered into the turn lane several times. The pursuit continued for over 30 seconds before the trooper activated the cruiser lights and siren.

Eyes-crossed-300x200

No problem with Lack Of Convergence (LOC)

Simmons pulled over safely in a school driveway and stopped. The trooper had Simmons sit in the cruiser. The trooper observed that Simmons’ movements and speech were normal, but the trooper questioned Simmons about using alcohol and drugs.   Simmons denied using alcohol but admitted he smoked marijuana a couple days before the incident.

The trooper administered several field sobriety tests. On the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (involuntary jerking of eyes), which troopers always say is the best because “the eyes don’t lie”, there were no clues. However, the trooper observed Simmons’ eyes didn’t cross on the Lack of Convergence test (failure of eyes to cross).

Continue Reading