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 revised code Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "Ohio revised code" (Page 6)

O.A.C. 3701-53-02, Approved Evidential Breath Testing Instruments

Image by frippy via FlickrOhio Administrative Code 3701-53-02(A) sets forth the approved instruments for evidential breath testing in Ohio.  It states, (A) The instruments listed in this paragraph are approved as evidential breath testing instruments for use in determining whether a person's breath contains a concentration of alcohol prohibited or defined by sections 4511.19 and/or 1547.11 of the Revised Code, or any other equivalent statute or local ordinance prescribing a defined or prohibited breath-alcohol concentration. The approved evidential breath testing instruments are:BAC DataMaster, BAC DataMaster K, BAC DataMaster cdm; Intoxilyzer model 5000 series 66, 68 and 68 EN; and Intoxilyzer model 8000 (OH-5).O.A.C....

Continue reading

Ohio’s Definition of an ‘Alcoholic’

[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...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Rogers (sentencing issue)

State v. Rogers, 2010-Ohio-197(CA11) The issue in this case is whether or not the Girard Municipal Court properly considered the sentencing factors of  R.C. 2929.22.  The 11th District Court of Appeals held that "a silent record raises the presumption that the trial court correctly considered the appropriate sentencing criteria.” Peaspanen, 2005-Ohio-4658, at ¶29."Practice Pointer:  If you have an issue regarding sentencing, you better raise it at the sentencing....

Continue reading