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?!
This summer, I had the honor of being shadowed by Japanese criminal defense lawyer Yaeko Hashimoto, who recently completed an LL.M. program at the O.S.U. Moritz College of Law. In our conversations, it became clear there are differences between DUI/OVI laws in Ohio and DUI/OVI laws in Japan. Yaeko agreed to be a guest blogger and prepared the remainder of this article.
We are all urged to call the police if we suspect someone is driving under the influence. This message comes to us in radio and television commercials, on billboards, and on cruiser license plates: 1-800-GRAB-DUI. If someone makes the call, when should the police be permitted to stop the driver based on that informant’s tip alone? This question is a hot topic in Ohio DUI/OVI law this year. Two Ohio appellate courts decided ‘informant tip’ cases last month, and the United States Supreme Court decided one earlier this year.
If a driver is pulled over and charged with a criminal offense, can the police search through the data on the driver’s cell phone? That question was recently addressed by the United States Supreme Court. The case does not directly involve a DUI/OVI, but it’s definitely worth reporting in this blog. This is a significant case in the area of search and seizure law, and there are frequently search and seizure issues in DUI/OVI cases.
What does it mean when the law says an officer must have ‘probable cause’ to arrest a person for a DUI/OVI? Common sense tells us the evidence observed by the officer must lead to the conclusion that the person is probably under the influence. Common sense and case law tell us the officer must consider all of the evidence in making the arrest decision. A recent case in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses this issue and implies that evidence of sobriety has little meaning in the probable cause determination.
This is Memorial Day Weekend, the unofficial beginning of summer. A lot of people will be on the road: visiting friends, attending parades, and going to cookouts. Some unlucky people on the road will find themselves stopped at DUI/OVI roadblocks. Although they do nothing wrong, they will have to stop, wait, wait some more, produce identification, and answer questions. They aren’t suspected of doing anything illegal, but they are seized.
What should we do with repeat DUI/OVI offenders? On one hand, we want them to be rehabilitated, and we want them to be employed, which usually requires driving. On the other hand, we want to punish them and protect the public from the risk of harm they create. In Ohio, to protect the public from the danger posed by repeat offenders, we typically require them to have ignition interlock devices installed so they cannot drive after consuming alcohol. In Florida, the state legislature is considering an alternative to ignition interlock: “24/7 Sobriety”. Florida’s consideration of this program raises the question: should Ohio use daily alcohol testing for repeat offenders?
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.
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.
In January, Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational marijuana. In March, Colorado became the first state to televise entertaining public service announcements about the danger of driving under the influence of marijuana. The commercials are part of the Colorado Department of Transportation’s new campaign: “Drive High, Get A DUI“. 
Although Colorado is one of only two states to legalize recreational marijuana, it is not the only state to criminalize operation of a vehicle under the influence of marijuana. Contrasting Colorado’s handling of DUI marijuana with that of Ohio illustrates the deficiencies in Ohio’s approach.
Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog