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 Court Process Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "DUI Court Process" (Page 22)

Intoxilyzer 8000 Finding Opposition Throughout Ohio and Beyond

In an article in the Athens News (click HERE), the newspaper outlines the latest developments in the attacks on the implementation of the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test machine.  Apparently, the Ohio Department of Health is not providing a rousing defense of the machine.  Quoting from the article, "Toy noted that in both the Athens and Pickaway County cases, ODH official Mary Martin testified on behalf of the agency, but that Dumm's ruling says her testimony given that she has no scientific background isn't sufficient basis to validate the Intoxilyzer's findings as trial evidence." Up till now, prosecutors...

Continue reading

Ohio Speeding Law Update: Laser Guns & Admissibility

Great Speeding Decision from the 12th Appellate District In State v. Starks, 2011-Ohio-2344 the Defendant was stopped for a speeding violation  in a construction zone and went to trial pro se. He objected to any testimony regarding a laser gun.  The trial court took judicial notice of the reliability of the laser gun and the defendant was convicted.  He appealed to the 12th District Court of Appeals and his conviction was reversed.  The Court ruled, Although the underlying principles of laser technology may be the same from one device to another, generally judicial notice as to the reliability of a...

Continue reading

Intoxilyzer 8000 Evidence Thrown Out in Circleville, Ohio

Rollout of breath tester hits legal snag As reported HERE in the Columbus Dispatch, "Judge Gary Dumm of Circleville Municipal Court ruled Thursday that test results from the Intoxilyzer 8000 will not be admitted in his court until the state can present scientific proof that the machine's technology is sound."  This flirts with overturning the 1984 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in State v. Vega that states that breath tests in general cannot be challenged by expert testimony, Dumm said the ruling permitted him to examine whether the Intoxilyzer 8000 was "proper equipment."Columbus lawyer Tim Huey, president-elect and DUI chairman...

Continue reading

Are We One Step Closer to Killing State v. Vega?

Most challenges to a breath testing instrument in Ohio are limited by a 1984 Ohio Supreme Court ruling (State v. Vega) that held that once the Ohio Department of Health certifies a machine, it becomes valid and the defendant loses the ability to argue defenses based on the underlying science of the machine.  This author has made it a long-standing goal to fight this case and has done so for over 10 year.  Well, a case out of Athens may represent a crack in the dam.  The story is from the Columbus Dispatch.Breath-tester’s reliability challenged in hearingSaturday, May 28, 2011...

Continue reading

The Role of the Prosecutor

In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935), the United States Supreme Court set forth the unique role of a prosecuting attorney in our system of justice. The [prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law: Failure to File a Motion To Suppress

Should You File A Motion to Suppress?In State v. Thomas, 2011-Ohio-1987 (2nd Dist. Ct. App. 2011), the Defendant was convicted of felony OVI after a jury trial.  No motion to suppress was filed and it was determined during the jury trial that the officer wasn't sure whether he turned off his overhead lights during the horizontal gaze nystagmus portion of the standardized field sobriety tests, but stated that it was normal to do so.  An argument exists that doing the test in this manner should result in suppression of the test as the phenomenon of optokinetic...

Continue reading

Dayton DUI: The Court Process from Arraignment to Disposition

"Sometimes when you're arrested the scariest part is not know what comes next." Click the title above to see a video of Dayton DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland explain what happens from arrest to disposition in your Ohio DUI case.Related articles3-Day Driver Intervention Programs (daytondui.com) Arrested for DUI in Dayton, Ohio? (daytondui.com) Dayton DUI on YouTube (daytondui.com) Reckless Operation in Ohio (daytondui.com)...

Continue reading

I Did Not Refuse!

If you were tested on an Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test machine, the source-code (software inside the machine) may have been rigged against you.  One of the most dramatic happenings in the science of a DUI has been the developments of the source-code battle taking place in Minnesota.  Ohio has recently rejected the Ohio-made BAC DataMaster in favor of the Intoxilyzer breath test machine (often referred to as the Intoxi-LIAR) so we can soon expect similar science-based battles in the Buckey State.Chuck Ramsay, a DWI attorney in Minnesota has been litigating the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000 for several years.  Recently...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Kendall (cracked windshield)

Image via WikipediaState v. Kendall, 2010-Ohio-227, 2009-CA-0010 (OHCA5) In this case, the State of Ohio appeals the August 12, 2009 Judgment Entry of the Morrow County Municipal Court granting defendant-appellee Lawrence G. 's motion to suppress evidence.  The trial court granted the motion, ruling that a mere crack in the windshield did not justify a stop.  "Well that can't be right, " said the prosecutor; "we are justified in pulling someone over for window tint."  Off the parties went to the Fifth District Court of Appeals for the answer. They ruled, "O.A.C. 4501:2-1-11 is the administrative section for Motor Vehicle...

Continue reading