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

Challenging the Breath Test (Part II)

Undetected, raw, unabsorbed alcohol in the mouth may falsely elevate the results of a breath test. This residual mouth alcohol (RMA) can come from items ingested just prior to the test, from regurgitated (burped) air from the stomach, or from gastroesophogeal reflux.  Ohio testing protocol attempts to guard against this testing flaw by requiring officers to observe the defendant for twenty minutes prior to the test.  They look for burping, vomiting or any ingestion of items into the mouth.  Lazy observation by the police officer can result in a contamination of the test.The BAC DataMaster, Ohio's most common breath testing...

Continue reading

BAC DataMaster DMT

Below is a description of NPAS's latest version of the BAC DataMaster, the DataMaster DMT. This machine is able to print out the slope of the alcohol curve of the breath entering the machine.  In effect, this will demonstrate when a defendant tries to "trick" the machine by manipulating their breath.  It will also limit the defense of the test based on Residual Mouth Alcohol issues.  Don't get excited, however, they have not been purchased or used by any jurisdiction in Ohio...

Continue reading

Protecting Your Ohio Driver’s License After Your OVI Case

Dealing with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles can be a nightmare. So, you will want to avoid problems before they rear their ugly heads. Don't worry! You can make this as painless as possible by following these simple rules. 1. Make sure the BMV knows how to reach you. The burden is upon you to notify them of any address change. Courts will accept their statement that they sent you information at your last known address as valid even if you did not get it. You can apply for an address change on line here.2. Make sure the court knows...

Continue reading

DUI Science: a list of studies related to DUI/OVI

Alobaid, TA. Hill DW. Payne JP. "Significance of variations in blood: breath partition coefficient or alcohol." British Medical Journal. 2(6050), 1976 Dec 18: 1479-81.ASTM E 177-90a, "1999 Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Section 14 General Methods and Instrumentation", Standard Practice for the Use of the Terms Precision and Bias inASTM Test Methods, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999, pp.39-50. Reference Target Vapor Mean Solution Concentration Intoxilizer SD RSD g/ l 00ml g/210L Response g/210L 0.025 0.020 0.020 0.001 6.2%  .139 0.110 0.117 0.004 3.3% 0.254 0.210 0.212 0.005 2.4% 0.369 0.305 0.303 0.008 2.6% 0.486 0.400 0.397 0.019 4.7% Breath Alcohol...

Continue reading

Reckless Operation and Traffic Rule 10(D)

Traffic Rule 10(D), Traffic Rule 2 And Your Reckless Op Is your case a "traffic case?" Traffic Rule 10(D) is the controlling statute.Reckless operation is defined at Revised Code 4511.20. It reads, Operation in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.(A) No person shall operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street or highway in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.(B) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted...

Continue reading

Drunk Driving and Jurisdiction

Client: I was stopped by a Beavercreek Police Officer, but I was outside of Beavercreek.  I had crossed into Fairborn.  Will my case be dismissed?Many people (including attorneys) have the mistaken belief that an officer may only effectuate a traffic/DUI stop in his or her own jurisdiction.  The Ohio Revised Code, section 2935.03 provides that not only may an officer arrest within the jurisdiction, but may also do so outside of the limits in certain circumstances.  DUI, as a first degree misdemeanor offense, is such a circumstance.  My own 2nd District Court of Appeals, in State v. Cox, 1999 WL 980345,...

Continue reading

DUID, Driving Under the Influence of Drugs

"When compared to alcohol, cannabis is detected far less often in accident-involved drivers.  Drummer et al. (2003) cited several studies and found that alcohol was detected in 12.5% to 79% of drivers involved in accidents.  With regard to crash risk, a large study conducted by Borkenstein, Crowther, Shumate, Zeil and Zylman (1964) compared BAC in approximately 6,000 accident-involved drivers and 7,600 nonaccident controls.  They determined the crash risk for each BAC by comparing the number of accident-involved drivers with detected levels of alcohol at each BAC to the number of non-accident control drivers with the same BAC.  They found that...

Continue reading

Non-Compliance Suspension

What Is A Non-Compliance Suspension? A non-compliance suspension stems from failing to show proof of insurance at the time of an accident or traffic offense, failure to pay a court ordered judgment, or from those wonderful random letters seeking verification of your insurance status. These suspensions run ninety days for the first offense, one year for the second, and two years for each offense thereafter for each offense committed within a five year period.In addition, the revised code staggers the reinstatement fee and the ability to obtain limited driving privileges. Pursuant to R.C. 4503.232, 4510.52 and 4510.53 all driver licenses, CDLs and...

Continue reading

Working Hard to be the Best DUI Attorney in Ohio

At least until September, I am the only Ohio attorney certified on the newest version of the BAC DataMaster and the Intoxilyzer 8000.  Couple this with the fact that my National Patent training included the new DataMaster DMT, and I am fairly confident in my ability to understand your breath test and apply the best scientific defense available.  I am busting my ass to be the best DUI attorney that I can be.  If you want an attorney who will work amazingly hard to win your case, contact me today at 937-879-9542 or 1-888-769-5263. ...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law: State v. Shuler (Portable Breath Test Not Allowed)

Portable Breath Test Not Allowed The Fourth District Court of Appeals slammed the use of portable breath tests as trial evidence in State v. Shuler, 168 Ohio App.3d 183, 2006-Ohio-4336.  The unique facts of this case were that the defendant was stopped on November 6, 2004 for making an erratic, improper turn.  He was "asked" to leave the vehicle for submission to field sobriety tests.  In addition, the officer administered a portable breath test to the defendant.  The PBT result was .078 (below the legal limit).  The defendant was arrested and taken to the station where the results of the BAC test were...

Continue reading