a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

ovi motion to suppress Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "ovi motion to suppress"

Burden Shifting At A Motion To Suppress Hearing

A motion to suppress is often the most critical phase of the OVI trial process.  Procedurally, the defense attorney files a motion challenging all of the government's evidence.  Once this motion is filed the government has the burden of demonstrating the propriety of the arrest and that law enforcement substantially complied with the rules.When a defendant challenges the admission of a breath-alcohol test, courts apply a burden shifting analysis. The state must show substantial compliance with ODH regulations, and if the state meets that burden, a rebuttable presumption arises that the test results are admissible. Burnside at ¶ 24; State...

Continue reading

A Motion To Suppress Is Vital In An Ohio DUI Case

In State v. French, 72 Ohio St. 3d 446, 1995-Ohio-32, 646 N.E. 2d 887 (1995), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a pretrial motion to suppress is the only way to challenge the admissibility of a chemical test.  If not filed, the results will be automatically admissible at trial.  The prosecuting attorney will not need to lay a foundation and any objection by the defense as to their admission will be overruled by the judge.  This makes choosing an experienced DUI attorney vital to your case as they will know what to challenge in a pretrial suppression motion.A motion to...

Continue reading

Ohio Supreme Court Rules on DUI Motion To Suppress Issue

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a DUI Motion to Suppress issue in State v. Codeluppi, 2012-Ohio-5812.In August of 2011, Officer Ryan M. Young of the North Ridgeville Police Department stopped Ms. Codeluppi on Lorain Road for driving 53 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone.  When Officer Young walked to the driver’s window of Ms. Codeluppi’s car, he smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car. Following an investigation and administration of standardized field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for OVI.In her motion to suppress, Ms. Codeluppi asserted that: the officer lacked sufficient reasonable grounds...

Continue reading

Stop & Sniff Case Law Update (by DaytonDUI)

In Kirtland Hills v. Medancic, 2012-Ohio-4333, a recent case out of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, the Court reaffirmed the principle that just because a police officer smells alcohol on a driver does not mean that the police officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion to continue the detention of the driver and/or remove that driver to administer standardized field sobriety tests.  One of the major decision points in the OVI arrest process is the officer’s decision to remove a suspect from his or her car and conductstandardized field sobriety testing. The officer is trained to arrive at this “decision point” by conducting an interview and...

Continue reading