Articles Tagged with Ohio DUI/OVI

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

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

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

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

The New York Police Department recently demanded that Google remove a function from the Waze app which permits users to report DUI checkpoint locations. In its ‘cease and desist’ letter, the NYPD stated posting checkpoint locations is irresponsible and possibly criminal. The agency insisted that Google take every necessary precaution to ensure GPS data of DUI checkpoints is not posted on Waze, Google Maps, or associated platforms under its control. If the police in New York City can place such demands on Google, then law enforcement in Ohio can do the same. This raises the question: should the government prohibit Waze (and other apps) from reporting DUI / OVI checkpoints in Ohio?

Waze-screen-shot-300x161

Waze is a navigation and traffic app which allows drivers to share real-time traffic information. The app was purchased by Google in 2013 (for a mere $966 million). App users can see information from other drivers on their route, such as average speeds, traffic congestion, potholes, accidents, and police presence. Police presence is indicated by an icon of a police officer. The icon does not indicate the nature of the police presence, but users can add notes to the icon, including the presence of a DUI checkpoint. It’s the DUI checkpoint information which is the subject of the strenuous objection by the NYPD.

The NYPD has good intentions. In the letter to Google, the agency states it is “endeavoring to eliminate traffic fatalities”, and “paramount to the success of this initiative is the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) enforcement of the Driving While Impaired (DWI) Laws”. Nobody can argue with that.

Continue Reading

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.

Photo-of-I-8000-saying-do-not-use-300x225

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.

Continue Reading

In this space, we typically discuss issues related to OVI/DUI law. Today, however, we’re going to take a brief detour and discuss a growing issue: distracted driving. With the near ubiquity of cell phones, instances of fatal car accidents caused by distracted drivers have approached 3,500 nationally in recent years. This year, the State of Ohio passed a new law in an effort to combat this problem.

Texting-while-driving-300x200

The new law is not the first Ohio statute to combat distracted driving. Ohio has had a law against texting while driving on the books since 2012. The Ohio General Assembly now addresses the reality that smart phones present numerous distractions beyond simply texting. Effective October 29, 2018, ORC 4511.991 gives police and prosecutors the ability to enhance the sentence for a traffic offense committed while distracted if the distracting activity is a contributing factor to the commission of the offense. If this enhancement is proven, courts can assess up to an additional $100 in fines on top of any fines levied for the underlying traffic offense. Defendants can then choose to either pay the additional fines or take an online distracted driving safety course.

Continue Reading

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’.

Vegas-2018-300x218

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.

Continue Reading

Scooter-DUI-131x300Electric scooters are a thing. In cities across the country, people are riding them, and leaving them, everywhere. During my recent trip to Santa Monica, I decided I would rent one and ride it on the bike path along the beach (“The Strand”). It turns out e-scooters were banned on The Strand, so I rented a bike. Some people rode electric scooters on The Strand anyway, apparently unconcerned about breaking the law. One Santa Monica scooter rider was prosecuted for breaking the law in a different way: driving drunk on an e-scooter. Could someone in Ohio be prosecuted for DUI/OVI on an e-scooter?

Is An Electric Scooter A “Vehicle” Or A “Motor Vehicle”?
Ohio Revised Code section 4511.19 prohibits operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The question is whether an electric scooter is a “vehicle” subject to the OVI law. The relevant definitions have changed over time, as chapter 4511 of the Ohio Revised Code is amended frequently. In fact, section 4511.19 has been amended about 20 times since 1982.

Currently, a vehicle is defined by ORC section 4511.01(A) as follows: Continue Reading

Our firm has historically advised the best way to avoid getting arrested for OVI/DUI is to have a plan in place and to stick to that plan once you’ve started drinking. For many people, that plan involves having someone else behind the wheel for your trip home, most likely in the form of an UBER, Lyft, or a taxi (remember those?). As more and more people turn to these ride sharing apps, not only for transportation, but as a source of extra money, an important question arises: What happens when the people we rely on to help avoid an OVI/DUI charge get charged with one themselves?

Uber-and-Lyft-sign-300x146

UBER DRIVERS & OVI
UBER runs background checks on all potential drivers, but they are somewhat vague about what could disqualify an applicant. They say “major driving violations” as well as a “recent history of minor driving violations” may disqualify a potential driver. It seems obvious an OVI/DUI would be considered a “major traffic violation”. Therefore, as long as an OVI/DUI is on your record, you may be disqualified for driving for UBER. Under Ohio law, OVI/DUI is not expungable, which means it stays on your record forever, permanently disqualifying you from driving for UBER.

What happens if a current UBER driver is charged with OVI/DUI? UBER states pending violations disqualify drivers “unless and until such charges are resolved in a driver’[s]… favor.” In most cases, people charged with OVI would consider it a victory to have the charge reduced. For UBER drivers, however, having an OVI reduced to Physical Control or Reckless Operation may still be considered a “major traffic violation”, leading to disqualification. For UBER drivers, OVIs may be an all-or-nothing proposition.

Continue Reading