24 August

Sticky

Military DUI: Must I Report My DUI Arrest to My Superior?

Brown, Rowland, Babb & Campbell is proud to have the services of Richard T. Brown, former Staff Judge Advocate to advise on matters pertaining to the defense of Air Force personnel. If you are charged with a DUI (now called OVI in Ohio) resulting from activities on or around Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, contact Charles M. Rowland II for a complete DUI defense. Read our full FAQ & watch our video on Military DUI here. Below is an article, written by Richard Brown answering the vexing questions about whether or not you must report your OVI arrest to your superior officer.By Richard...

07 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Arrested for DUI in West Carrollton, Ohio?

Posted by Dayton DUI

in Ohio Cities

If you are arrested for OVI in West Carrollton, Ohio your case will be heard in the Miamisburg Municipal Court. The Miamisburg Municipal Court provides justice services for the communities of West Carrollton, Miamisburg, the Village of Germantown, Miami Township and German Township. The Miamisburg Municipal Court is located at 10 N. First Street, in Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 and is served by the honorable Judge Robert Messham and Magistrate John F. Kolberg. You can reach the Miamisburg Municipal Court Clerk’s Office at (937) 866-2203. The Miamisburg Municipal Court’s web site is HERE and you can get contact information HERE and directions to the court...

15 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Xenia Municipal Court History (from the court’s website)

Posted by Dayton DUI

in Ohio Cities

The History of Xenia Municipal Court Records indicate that a petition to the Greene County Common Pleas court for incorporation of Xenia was filed Mach 29, 1817. Sixty-six signatures are on that document. While the village became a city in 1834, Cornelius Clark, a lawyer became its first mayor. The City Council had its first meeting March 3, 1834 and the city was so governed by major and city council until January 2, 1918. Xenia had been governed by the commission / city manager form of municipal government since that date, the original charter having been adopted August 30, 1917.The first municipal Judge was the...

11 June

0 Comments

Sticky

DUI Arrests Based on Nontestimonial Evidence

Posted by Dayton DUI

in DUI Law

TESTIMONIAL vs. NONTESTIMONIALImage via WikipediaIn Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 110 S.Ct.2638 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that slurred speech and the muscle coordination (or lack thereof) required to complete the standardized field sobriety tests amount to nontestimonial information that does not fall within the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and does not invoke the safeguards of Miranda warnings. They held that standardized field sobriety tests are "real" tests and/or tests of a "physical" variety. This ruling was consistent with its holding in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), which held that the Fifth Amendment...

08 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Ohio’s Definition of an ‘Alcoholic’

Posted by Dayton DUI

in Drugs & Alcohol, DUI Law, DUI Process

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="108" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]Ohio Denies a License to Persons Defined as Alcoholics In 1996, Ohio amended Ohio Administrative Code 4501:1-1-16(A) to define an "alcoholic" as one who meets the following criteria: (1) Is convicted three or more times within the immediately preceding three-year period of division (A) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code or of a substantially similar municipal ordinance or of a statute of another state or of the United States; or(2) Is convicted three or more times within a three-year period of any traffic violation where from the evidence presented, the trier of fact finds that...

07 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Ohio Breath Test Law; the 3-hour Rule

Posted by Dayton DUI

in DUI Law, DUI Process

Substantial Compliance Requires Collection Within Three Hours. R.C. 4511.19(D) sets forth a three-hour time limitation for the collection of bodily substances for alcohol and/or drug testing. This rule is a change from Ohio's previous law which gave the State only two hours in which to obtain a sample.The time requirement has been adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in Cincinnati v. Sand, 43 Ohio St.2d 79, 330 N.E.2d 908 (1975) and more definitively at Newark v. Lucas, 40 Ohio St.3d 100, 532 N.E.2d 130 (1988), where the court held that tests in test cases (cases involving a violation of the prohibited...

03 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Ohio Supreme Court Rules on Adam Walsh Act

Posted by Dayton DUI

in Ohio Criminal Law

Image by Anosmia via Flickr‘Adam Walsh’ Provision Requiring Attorney General to Reclassify Sex Offenders Violates Separation of Powers 2008-2502. State v. Bodyke, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2424. Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387. Judgments of the court of appeals reversed. Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.Pfeifer, J., concurs in the syllabus and judgment. O'Donnell, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. Cupp, J., dissents. Brown, C.J., not participating. Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-2424.pdfView oral argument video of this case.(June 3, 2010) In a narrowly tailored decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio voided as unconstitutional...

02 June

0 Comments

Sticky

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Miranda

Posted by Dayton DUI

in DUI Law

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]In the case, Berghuis v. Thompkins, the conservative Supreme Court has made major changes to the Miranda decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated, "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.""Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain ...

02 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Ohio DUI Law: Barberton v. Jenney (visual estimation is enough)

Posted by Dayton DUI

in DUI Law, DUI Process

Officer’s Unaided Visual Estimation of a Vehicle’s Speed Sufficient if Based on Training, Certification, Experience 2009-1069. Barberton v. Jenney, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2420.Image by jsmjr via FlickrSummit App. No. 24423, 2009-Ohio-1985. Judgment of the court of appeals affirmed. Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. O'Donnell, J., dissents. Brown, C.J., not participating.(June 2, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio today ruled 5-1 that a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed is sufficient to support a speeding conviction without independent verification of the vehicle’s...

26 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Ohio DUI Law: State v. Wilson

Posted by Dayton DUI

in DUI Law

State v. Wilson, 5/26/10 (First District Court of Appeals)[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]The defendant was stopped and the officer smelled marijuana. Thirty-five seconds later the officer asks the defendant to step from the car. It was at this point that the officer is informed that the defendant has a concealed carry permit. The Ohio concealed carry statute requires the defendant to "promptly" inform the officer of the fact that the defendant was carrying.No problem right? Not according to the First District Court of Appeals, who ruled that the defendant did not "promptly" notify the officer. ...

DUI Court Process Tag

I support The Substance Abuse Prevention Institute