a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

reasonable and articulable suspicion Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "reasonable and articulable suspicion"

The Ohio “Clear and Convincing Evidence” Standard

Clear and Convincing Evidence is required for the standardized field sobriety tests to be admitted. Ohio Revised Code 4511.19(D)(4)(b) sets forth the standards for admissibility of the results of field sobriety tests in OVI (drunk driving) prosecutions.  See State v. Bozcar, 113 Ohio St. 3d 148, 2007-Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 115 (2007).  In order for the tests to be admissible, the State must demonstrate:By clear and convincing evidence. The Officer administered the tests in substantial compliance. The testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted test. Including, but not limited to, the standards set by NHTSA.The only guidance provided for determining the meaning of “substantial compliance” has come from State v....

Continue reading

What Are (And What Are Not) Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

The dream of implementing Standardized Field Sobriety Tests has long been a goal of law enforcement.  Extensive government testing was begun in the 1970's to determine a scientifically valid way of helping police officers detect intoxication in drivers under suspicion of drunk driving.  Prior to this undertaking, officers were doing their best to gather evidence of drunk driving, or simply not arresting for the offense due to the difficulty of proving impairment in court.  Some more ingenious tests included throwing coins on ground; if the suspect could pick them up without falling over, they must be sober.  Other popular tests that...

Continue reading

Marked Lanes Violations & Traffic Stops

When can a police officer make a stop for a marked lanes violation? In State v. Houck, 2011-Ohio-6359, Ohio's Fifth Appellate District considered the legal standards required to stop a person for a marked lanes violation. See O.R.C. 4511.33 “In Ohio, when a driver commits only a de minimis marked-lanes violation, there must be some other evidence to suggest impairment before an officer is justified in stopping the vehicle. See State v. Gullett (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 138, 145, 604 N.E.2d 176, 180–181. In Gullett, the Fourth District Court of Appeals concluded that the mere crossing of an edge line on two...

Continue reading

License Plate Light Not Illuminated (O.R.C. 4513.05)

In Ohio, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle without a white light illuminating the rear registration plate. See O.R.C. 4513.05.  This law is often used as a pretext for a traffic stop which allows the officer to come into contact with the motorist.  Here is a full text of the law. 4513.05 Tail lights and illumination of rear license plate. (A) Every motor vehicle, trackless trolley, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, or vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a train of vehicles shall be equipped with at least one tail light mounted on the rear which, when lighted,...

Continue reading

Nonstandardized Field Sobriety Tests

Ohio has adopted the three-test field sobriety protocol as set forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) manual for training law enforcement officers.  The three tests adopted by NHTSA all survived scientific scrutiny as being indicative of impairment.  The tests are: (1) horizontal gaze nystagmus, a test of the subject's eyes; (2)  walk & turn; (3) one-leg-stand.  The officer is trained to administer the tests in a standardized fashion and record "clues" of impairment as evidenced by the subject's performance on the tests.Often, you will encounter a circumstance where the officer employs an non-standardized field sobriety test.  These...

Continue reading

The Problems With Portable Breath Tests (by DaytonDUI)

In possibly the best article you will ever read on portable breath testing, DUI attorneys Justin McShane and Josh Lee describe the portable breath test devises which are used by the Ohio State Highway Patrol as a "potentially dangerous, non-specific and non-selective measures at roadside."  You can find the article HERE and in the Voice for the Defense. The Problems of Fuel Cell Devices1.1. Lack of Specificity20 for EthanolAs PBTs are used for purportedly forensic purposes, their specificity for ethanol becomes a critical factor. The electrochemical detector is not specific for ethanol.21 Indeed, there is “much evidence to show” they are actually not...

Continue reading

Is The Smell Of Alcohol Enough To Justify Field Sobriety Testing?

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: Is Smell Enough? Some Ohio courts have upheld determinations that the mere presence of a moderate to strong odor of alcohol, coupled with a proper initial stop, is sufficient to justify the administration of field sobriety tests. See, e.g., State v. Tackett, 2d Dist. No. 2011-CA-15, 2011-Ohio-6711 (“[t]his court has, however, repeatedly held that a strong odor of alcohol alone is sufficient to provide an officer with reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior”). See also State v. Schott, 2d Dist. No. 1415, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2061 (May 16, 1997); State v. Haucke, 2d Dist. No. 99 CA...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI: Standardized Field Sobriety Tests & Marijuana

State v. Dixon, 2007-Ohio-5189 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Clermont County 2007).More and more, we are seeing law enforcement officers arrest drivers on suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana.  Often, an officer will request a urine test for marijuana after a defendant has blown substantially under the per se alcohol limit on a breath test machine.  This raises questions about the proper determination of probable cause.  If, for example, no alcohol was suspected how did the officer arrive deduce enough evidence to make an arrest? Were the standardized field sobriety tests administered to detect alcohol or...

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