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 dui case law Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "ohio dui case law"

DUI Case Law – Ohio DUI | OVI Blog (Due Process)

To understand DUI case law, it is important to understand how the United States Supreme Court analyzes due process issues.  "The Supreme Court has identified two distinct categories of fundamental liberties. The first category includes most of the liberties expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Through a process known as "selective incorporation," the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to bar states from denying their residents the most important freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution. Only the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment right against involuntary quartering of soldiers, and the Fifth...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law Update: Appellate Court Upholds Intoxilyzer 8000

In the first appellate decision involving the Intoxilyzer 8000, Ohio's 12th District Court of Appeals ruled that tests should be allowed despite the plain language of the Ohio Administrative Code.  The ruling is the first setback to defense attorneys (like me!) who have challenged the implementation of the machine in Ohio.  The case is State v. Kormos, 2012-Ohio-3128 and you can read the full decision HERE.At issue was Ohio Administrative Code section 3701-53-04 which incorporates the new rules for calibrations of the Intoxilyzer 8000. See O.A.C. 3701-53-04(B) as set forth below.  The “new” standards “automatically perform a dry gas control test before...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law: Is Duress An Affirmative Defense To An OVI?

Duress was asserted as an affirmative defense in Cleveland v. Chambers, 1984 WL 5006 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1984).  In that case, the accused was robbed in a parking lot and told to "get out of here" by the perpetrator who took the extra step of following him in a separate car.  The police found the defendant when he subsequently crashed his car.  The defendant was charged with OVI.  Even under these extreme circumstances, the court found the defendant's apprehensions "did not create a circumstance where [he] had no control over his actions nor where he was...

Continue reading

Case Law Update: State v. Kitzler

State v. Kitzler, 2011-Ohio-5444 (3rd District Court of Appeals, Wyandot County). This odd decision involves the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test machine and a test result which did not satisfy the .020 agreement.FACTS: Defendant was stopped for not dimming his headlights and for marked lane violations.  He was asked to perform the standardized field sobriety tests and subsequently arrested for OVI.  At the police station he provided two breath samples (as is required on the Intoxilyzer 8000) and the machine reported the result as "Invalid."  The tests did not meet the .020 agreement.  Defendant was allowed to use the restroom and...

Continue reading