a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

Mary Martin Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "Mary Martin"

OVI Case Law Update: State v. McMahon

In State v. McMahon, 12TRC-34824B, the city of Cincinnati appealed a ruling which granted a motion to suppress.  The trial court suppressed the results of McMahon’s breath test after determining that the director of health had not promulgated the necessary requirements under R.C. 3701.143 for obtaining the access card required for operation of an Intoxilyzer 8000 machine.The issue for appeal was whether the trial court correctly found that the director of health had failed to promulgate the qualifications required for the issuance of an access card to those seeking to operate an Intoxilyzer 8000 machine.  Pursuant to R.C. 3701.143, the director...

Continue reading

Problems with the Intoxilyzer 8000

If you have been charged with OVI (drunk driving) based on a test on the Inoxilyzer 8000, let Charles M. Rowland II defend your case.  He was the first private attorney in Ohio to be certified as an operator of the Intoxilyzer 8000, he is Ohio's only Forensic Sobriety Assessment certified attorney, and  he limits his practice to the defense of the drunk driver.  Given the problems with the implementation of the Intoxilyzer 8000, you need an attorney who is up-to-date and on the cutting edge of DUI/OVI defense. What Are The Problems?The Intoxilyzer 8000, manufactured by CMI (out of Kentucky)...

Continue reading

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