a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

OVI Law: You Don’t Need A Turn Signal When Going Straight

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > DUI Law  > OVI Law: You Don’t Need A Turn Signal When Going Straight

OVI Law: You Don’t Need A Turn Signal When Going Straight

Ohio v. Paseka, 2013-Ohio-2362

Vehicle with its left directional signal activ...

On December 29, 2011, Cory Paseka was traveling westbound on Lima-Sandusky Road in Erie County when he came to a fork in the road.  He continued straight on Lima-Sandusky Road and did not veer to the left which would have put him on Wahl Road.  An officer proceeded to stop Paseka for a violation of O.R.C. 4511.39 (failure to use a turn signal) which states,

“No person shall turn a vehicle… or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such person has exercised due care to ascertain that the movement can be made with reasonable safety nor without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided. When required, a signal of intention to turn or move right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle… before turning.”

He was subsequently arrested for an OVI/drunk driving offense.  The Erie County Prosecuting Attorney insisted that the point at which Wahl Road and Lima Sandusky Road meet constitutes an “intersection” and therefore a signal is required. The appellate judges did not buy that line of reasoning. “Westbound Wahl and Route 6 do not join at an angle, and further, vehicles traveling westbound on Wahl or on Route 6 do not come into conflict,” Judge Arlene Singer wrote for the Court of Appeals. “It is undisputed that appellant’s straight-ahead entrance onto Wahl Road did not require him to turn his vehicle, nor did it require him to switch into a different lane. As such, we fail to see how appellant violated R.C. 4511.39. Finding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop appellant’s vehicle, appellant’s sole assignment of error is found well-taken. The judgment of the Erie County Municipal Court is reversed.”

Because the initial traffic stop was not valid, the evidence that Paseka had been intoxicated was suppressed. A copy of the decision is available in a 30k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Ohio v. Paseka (Court of Appeals, State of Ohio, 6/7/2013)

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in DaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburg, Huber Heights,Beavercreek, 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,www.facebook.com/daytondui and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.comor write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Charles Rowland

charlie@daytondui.com

Charles M. Rowland II has been representing the accused drunk driver for over 20 years. Contact him at (937) 318-1384 if you find yourself facing a DUI (now called OVI) charge.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.