a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

Ohio Department of Health Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "Ohio Department of Health"

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

Intoxilyzer 8000 Upheld in Ohio’s 11th and 12th Appellate Courts

When you are accused of a DUI/OVI in Ohio, the breath test machine is presumed to be perfect.  What is more, your attorney cannot challenge scientifically provable flaws in the machine or the weakness in the science supporting the machine.  Such challenges are limited by a 1984 Ohio Supreme Court ruling (State v. Vega) holding 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...

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

Athens Judge Throws Out Intoxilyzer 8000 Rules

State v. Moore (12 TRC 1842) and State v. Montague (12 TRC 3773) Athens Municipal Court In another in a series of troubles for the implementation of Ohio's newest breath test machine, Judge Grimm in Athens County has halted use of the Intoxilyzer 8000.  Courts throughout Ohio must decide how, given this ruling, they will deal with the implementation of the machine.  The issue before the court involved the rules adopted by the Ohio Department of Health.  Specifically, the court was asked to address whether or not the Ohio Department of Health has authority to issue operator cards for the Intoxilyzer...

Continue reading

“Hiding the Ball” in Ohio DUI Cases

ODH and the Disappearing Intoxilyzer 8000 RecordsOne of the proposed benefits of the adoption of the Intoxilyzer 8000 was to be the consolidation of breath test records in one place.  Previously, breath test records were maintained by the individual police departments.  Implementation and maintenance of the Intoxilyzer 8000 is the responsibility of the Ohio Department of Health and specifically the ODH's Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Testing.  The Ohio Department of Health has started a web site containing all information about breath tests in the state, called the Breath Instrument Data Center. [HERE]  Records were to be available on-line and...

Continue reading

Residual Mouth Alcohol, Slope Detectors and the 20 Minute Observation

One of the most prevalent causes of error in breath-alcohol analysis is the presence of alcohol in the mouth.  This residual mouth alcohol (hereinafter R.M.A.) contaminates the expired breath captured by the machine and elevates the test results radically.  The BAC Datamaster’s computer is programmed to assume that a breath test reading is 100% deep-lung (alveolar) air.  This captured “deep-lung” air is then multiplied by 2100 pursuant to the accepted and scientifically defensible partition ratio.[1] Using these built-in assumptions it is evident that a very small amount of undigested (or trapped) alcohol can have a disproportionate impact on the reading.At...

Continue reading

Fighting for Fairness in DUI Law

As anyone who follows this blog regularly knows, I have a deep and abiding hatred for the 1984 Ohio Supreme Court decision in State vs. Vega (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 185, 465 N.E.2d 1303.  Vega has come to stand for the proposition that an attorney may challenge the particulars of his client's evidential breath test, but the standards and practices of breath testing as determined by the Ohio Department of Health are sacrosanct and cannot be challenged in court.  In this commentator's opinion, the Vega ruling allows junk science to become conclusive evidence (example: Ohio's adherence to a one-breath-test...

Continue reading

Who is Qualified to Conduct a Breath Test?

Evidential breath testing in Ohio is governed by the Ohio Administrative Code and the Ohio Revised Code.  The OVI statute, R.C. 4511.19(D)(1),  sets forth the requirements that evidential breath tests are admissible when analyzed by individuals holding valid permits issued pursuant to R.C. 3401.143, and qualified in accordance with O.A.C. 3701-53-07(C) - (F). The Ohio Administrative Code contemplates two types, or ranks, of people who are qualified to administer an evidential breath test: Operators and Senior Operators.  "Operators" are authorized to conduct breath tests, whereas, "Senior Operators" is capable of conducting breath tests, caring for the machine and its maintenance and...

Continue reading

Intoxilyer 8000: Costs High and Implementation Slow

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="240" caption="Image by OregonDOT via Flickr"][/caption]By James NashTHE COLUMBUS DISPATCH In the nine months since state officials unveiled a new device hailed as a potent new weapon against drunken driving, the equipment has been used rarely and only in a few rural and suburban pockets of Ohio. A federal grant provided $7 million to buy 710 portable breath testers in December 2008 despite warnings from attorneys, local judges and some scientists that the machines were unreliable and vulnerable to legal challenges.The Intoxilyzer 8000 made its debut in Clermont County in May. Since then, the instrument has been used just 1,116...

Continue reading