Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

Schmerber v. California Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "Schmerber v. California"

Methods for Obtaining A Test Under Ohio’s Implied Consent Law

  When you drive on Ohio's roadways you are assumed to have consented to a search of your blood, breath, plasma or urine if you are arrested pursuant to the Ohio Drunk Driving statute, R.C. 4511.19(A) or R.C. 4511.19(B). Ohio Revised Code 4511.191(A)(2) is Ohio's Implied Consent Law. It states, in pertinent part,  "Any person who operates a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley upon a highway or any public or private property used by the public for vehicular travel or parking within this state or who is in physical control of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley shall be deemed to have...

Continue reading

Forced Blood Draw In Ohio (What Happens After Missouri v. McNeeley?)

What is the status of Ohio's forced blood draw law [R.C. 4511.191] following the decision in Missouri v. McNeeley, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3160 (2013).In Missouri v, McNeely, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a nonconsensual warrantless blood draw violates a person’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The McNeely decision raises some questions for search warrants in OVI cases. Some of the questions include (1) Did this decision invalidate the implied consent laws? and (2) Are search warrants required for every DUI arrest before a forced blood draw can be taken from...

Continue reading

Ohio’s First Post-McNeeley Blood Draw Case

In State v. Hollis, 2013-Ohio-2586, the Fifth Appellate District was faced with an appeal of a decision from the Richland County Common Pleas Court. The case was the first forced blood draw decision following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v. McNeeley, which held "that in drunk-driving inves- tigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant.  The decision of the court used the previous rules for exigent circumstances as set forth in Schmerber v. California and does not address or rely upon...

Continue reading

DUI Blood Test and Miranda Rights

Miranda rights are required to be given when an “investigatory stop” turns into a “custodial investigation.” Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.  In other words, only when a traffic stop becomes “custodial” does the officer need to advise the defendant of his or her Miranda rights.  “Under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, statements stemming from custodial interrogations are admissible only after a showing that the procedural safeguards have been followed. “Custody” is when a defendant is taken into custody “or otherwise deprived of his freedom by...

Continue reading

DUI Arrests Based on Nontestimonial Evidence

TESTIMONIAL vs. NONTESTIMONIALImage via WikipediaIn Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 110 S.Ct.2638 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that slurred speech and the muscle coordination (or lack thereof) required to complete the standardized field sobriety tests amount to nontestimonial information that does not fall within the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and does not invoke the safeguards of Miranda warnings.  They held that standardized field sobriety tests are "real" tests and/or tests of a "physical" variety.  This ruling was consistent with its holding in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), which held that the Fifth Amendment...

Continue reading