a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

problems with the intoxilyzer 8000 Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "problems with the intoxilyzer 8000"

Intoxilyzer 8000 Is Unreliable Judge Finds

A judge recently ruled the Intoxilyzer 8000 (Ohio's newest breath testing machine) unreliable.  In State of Ohio v Chelsea Lancaster, Judge Teresa Liston who heard several cases, combined for purposes of challenging the device, at the request of Marietta Municipal Court Judge Janet Dyar Welch was assigned to hear just these Intoxilyzer 8000 cases.  Judge Liston is a retired judge who serves on the faculty of the National and Ohio Judicial Colleges and Capital University Law School.  She is well known and highly respected by her colleagues throughout the state. See HERE.The cases addressed the court's gatekeeper function as it relates to the...

Continue reading

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

Ohio DUI Law: Another Jurisdiction Dumps the Intoxilyzer 8000

Add Cincinnati to the Jurisdictions Not Relying on the Intoxilyzer 8000 It appears that the ruling from the 12th District Court of Appeals upholding the use of the Intoxilyzer 8000, despite clear language in the Ohio Administrative Code requiring a dry gas control prior to each subject test, has not saved the Intoxilyzer 8000 in nearby Hamilton County.  In May, Municipal Court Judge Melissa Powers agreed and ruled the machine must be cleared after each breath test. Her ruling threw OVI prosecutions within Cincinnati into limbo because defense attorneys used it to attack drunk-driving allegations made using that machine.  Cincinnati City Prosecutor Charlie...

Continue reading