DUI Law: Is This Constitutional?
Even if you are found not guilty at trial, the Automatic License Suspension issued at the beginning of your case will remain in effect. Yes, even if a jury of your peers concludes that you were wrongly arrested for OVI and exonerates you in court, the harsh ALS penalty will remain in effect. Guilt or innocence does not matter. How can this be?
In State v. Lewis, 2010 Ohio 2872 the First District Court of Appeals found that Ohio DUI law calls for an automatic license suspension if a person refuses a chemical test and O.R.C. 4511.191(D)(1) specifically states that “[a]ny subsequent finding that the person is not guilty of the charge that resulted in the person being requested to take the chemical test or tests under division (A) of this section does not affect the suspension.” The appellate court relied on the case of State v. Kurtz (Dec. 31, 1997), 2nd Dist. No. 97-CA-25. In that case Kurtz had been stopped and refused to submit to a chemical test resulting in an ALS. Kurtz eventually pled no-contest to a lesser charge, but the court continued to ALS citing the above statute.
I believe this to be a violation of the United States Constitution and I am looking for the perfect case to challenge this rule. In the United States, every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises in federal court from Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, “The Trial of all Crimes…shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.” The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant’s sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines.
DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro, Huber Heights, Oakwood, Beavercreek, Centerville and throughout Ohio. He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671. For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500. Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube. You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324. “All I do is DUI”
Related articles
- DUI Law: What Should I Say? (daytondui.com)
- Arrested for DUI in Kettering? (daytondui.com)
- Are the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests Fair to Fatter People? (daytondui.com)
- Arrested for DUI in Xenia or Bellbrook? (daytondui.com)
- DUI Science and More Faulty Breath Machine Assumptions (daytondui.com)
