a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

Defendant Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "Defendant"

Happy Presidents’ Day From Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland

Happy Presidents' Day from Dayton DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II and all of the folks at Babb & Rowland.  We hope that you have a great weekend and that you spend some time contemplating what kind of society in which you want your children to be raised.Dayton DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II is dedicated to making the criminal justice system reflect the values and freedoms set fort in the Constitution and brought to life by the courageous actions of our leaders. If you are in need of a Dayton DUI attorney this weekend, please contact him at (937)...

Continue reading

Appellate Decision: Rules (as written) Don’t Apply

A recent 10th District Court of Appeals decision in State v. Castle, 2012-Ohio-6028, decided on an interpretation of the Ohio Administrative Code that will allow the government to use both a BAC DataMaster or any other approved device to prosecute drunk driving cases in Ohio.  The court determined only the limited issue of whether the issuance of an operator access card under Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53- 09(D) prohibits the operator from performing breath tests using an instrument for which the operator also has been issued either an operator or senior operator permit under Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-09(B)."The BAC DataMaster and Intoxilyzer 8000 are...

Continue reading

A First Offense OVI In Ohio

A first offense OVI is defined at O.R.C. 4511.19 as a DUI with no priors within 6 years.  A first offense OVI can be charged in three ways.  The first charge is caused by testing over the legal limit of .08% B.A.C. (example O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(d)).  These types of offenses are also referred to as “per se”  violations.  A second way to be charged is for violating the high-tier provision of Ohio’s OVI law.  Ohio has also created a per se “high-tier” limit of .17% BrAC, sometimes referred to as a SUPER-OVI.  The per se high-tier limits for a first offense OVI are set forth at O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(f) The person...

Continue reading

DUI Law: Appellate Review & Motion to Suppress

I have written extensively about the importance of filing a motion to suppress to challenge the evidence that the State can use against a defendant in a DUI case.  Counsel can use the motion to suppress as an informal discovery tool, as an informal deposition of the State's witnesses, as a dry run of your scientific defense, or as a method of attacking the State's witnesses.  Whatever your strategy, the goal is to win.  But what if you don't?A defendant has not direct appeal from a decision overruling a motion to suppress because an adverse ruling is not considered a...

Continue reading

Actual Guilt vs. Legal Guilt

Image via Wikipedia"We make a distinction in this case between the "actual" guilt or innocence of a defendant and the "legal" guilt or innocence of a defendant. "Legal" guilt or innocence is that determination made by the trier of fact in a criminal trial.  Thus a defendant found "legally" guilty has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers in a criminal adjudication. "Actual" guilt is intended to refer to a determination in a civil trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant engaged in the conduct he was accused of in the...

Continue reading

Challenging the Breath Test (Part I)

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]Ohio classifies DUI in two ways.  The first offense 4511.19(A)(1)(a) is the old fashion notion that you are "under the influence" of alcohol or drugs.  This definition is subject to expansion by the prosecution and is scrupulously narrowed by the defense.  Other portions of the statute deal with "per se" violations, known as breath test cases (blowing over the limit).  These two types of cases are very different and will be analyzed differently by competent DUI counsel.Ohio has judicially recognized rules and procedures to ensure the...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law: State v. Bruce (Destruction of Evidence)

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="www.OhioDUIdefense.com"][/caption]State v. Bruce (2008), 2008-Ohio-5514, is the Second District's latest "destruction of evidence" ruling.  Here, the court granted a motion to provide the blood sample to the Defendant's expert.  The lab was not copied on this order.  The 2nd District held that the State did show substantial compliance with the Ohio Administrative Code and the fact that the lab destroyed the blood after the Court granted an Order to provide a specimen of blood to defendant's expert. The court found that there was no bad faith in the destruction...

Continue reading