a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

DUI Law

Intoxilyer 8000: Costs High and Implementation Slow

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="240" caption="Image by OregonDOT via Flickr"][/caption]By James NashTHE COLUMBUS DISPATCH In the nine months since state officials unveiled a new device hailed as a potent new weapon against drunken driving, the equipment has been used rarely and only in a few rural and suburban pockets of Ohio. A federal grant provided $7 million to buy 710 portable breath testers in December 2008 despite warnings from attorneys, local judges and some scientists that the machines were unreliable and vulnerable to legal challenges.The Intoxilyzer 8000 made its debut in Clermont County in May. Since then, the instrument has been used just 1,116...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law; State v. Reed (tipster reliability)

State v. Reed, 2010-Ohio-299 (OH2)Reed was arrested at approximately 12:45a.m. on February22, 2009, by Kettering Police Officers Schomburg and Woolf. Officer Schomburg testified that he and Officer Woolf were both in a UDF store on Stroop Road, in Kettering, and that: “We were just standing there talking, having a cup of, cup of hot chocolate; and then Patricia Wolfe, who’s a clerk at UDF she came running toward us and said that the defendant just bought some alcohol, bought some beer, and when he was leaving, he was stumbling, and he had a very, very strong odor of alcohol. She said...

Continue reading

Dayton DUI Treatise: What is an Invalid Sample Reading?

The following article appears on www.AVVO.com.  Please visit me on AVVO where I have earned a 10/10 rating.Written by: Charles Melville Rowland II Fairborn, OH  |  Avvo Rating: 10.0  |  Client Reviews (2)  Add to list Print Send to a friend Share thisThe Problem “I was standing by the machine. It beeped and the officer told me to blow. I blew and blew. The officer got really mad and told me that I was messing with the machine. He said I had to do it again. He took out one ticket and put in another. The next time I blew again…really hard. He told me that I...

Continue reading

Science Wins at the Supreme Court

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]Today in an per curiam decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Virginia Supreme Court and remanded the case to Virginia in light of its recent decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.  This is good news for the lawyers and defendants everywhere that wish to challenge and/or rely upon scientific evidence in their trials.  It means that the government still has to bring live witnesses to trial to testify and be subject to cross-examination.  It was widely thought that the four dissenters in Melendez-Diaz granted cert on this case in an effort to quickly overturn...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Rogers (sentencing issue)

State v. Rogers, 2010-Ohio-197(CA11) The issue in this case is whether or not the Girard Municipal Court properly considered the sentencing factors of  R.C. 2929.22.  The 11th District Court of Appeals held that "a silent record raises the presumption that the trial court correctly considered the appropriate sentencing criteria.” Peaspanen, 2005-Ohio-4658, at ¶29."Practice Pointer:  If you have an issue regarding sentencing, you better raise it at the sentencing....

Continue reading

Ohio Supreme Court: Wilson v. Cincinnati (1976)

The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits placing a defendant in a position of choosing between allowing a warrantless search or facing criminal penalties. Wilson v. Cincinnati (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 138, 145, 346 N.E.2d 666.  This is an important protection which places sensible limits on police power.  The picture to the left is of Ohio's Supreme Court, a magnificent structure located in downtown Columbus, Ohio. ...

Continue reading

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Fourth Amendment (State v. Smith, 2nd District)

2008-1781.  State v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6426. Greene App. No. 07-CA-47, 2008-Ohio-3717.  Judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and cause remanded to the trial court. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, O'Connor, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent. Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-6426.pdf(Dec. 15, 2009) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures requires police to obtain a warrant before searching data stored in a cell phone that has been seized from its owner in the course of a lawful arrest when the search is not necessary to protect the safety of law enforcement...

Continue reading

Crime Lab Generates False DUI Reports (from www.TheNewsPaper.com)

Crime lab in Colorado Springs, Colorado inflated the blood alcohol scores in 82 alleged drunk driving cases.At least eighty-two motorists in Colorado Springs, Colorado may have been falsely accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) based on unreliable blood test results. After double-checking its own work, the city's Metro Crime Lab on Friday admitted that out of 1000 tests conducted since January, no fewer than eighty-two results were inflated above the driver's true blood alcohol content. More incorrect readings could be discovered as re-testing continues."All of these samples are being re-analyzed by a senior forensic chemist and the...

Continue reading