a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

937.318.1384

Call 24/7 - Free Consultation!

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

Field Tests (SFSTs) Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "Field Tests (SFSTs)" (Page 4)

Ohio OVI Law: Impairment by Drugs

Ohio is making the transition to using the Drug Recognition Expert protocol in apprehending and prosecuting impaired drivers.   DRE refers not only to the officers themselves, but to the 12-step procedure that these officers use. DRE was developed by police officers from the Los Angeles (California) Police Department. In 1979, the Drug Recognition program received the official recognition of the LAPD.  On October 22, 2010, Ohio became the 48th state to be accepted into the International Association of Chiefs of Police's (IACP) Drug Evaluation and Classification Program (DECP).Once approved by the IACP's DECP Highway Safety Committee, Ohio was eligible to provide the DRE...

Continue reading

You’re Not Drunk, You’re ADD/ADHD

To be diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, a person has to demonstrate an inability to complete divided-attention testing.  In 2009, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 9.5 percent of children in the United States had ADHD, up from the previous survey.  The trend has not gone unnoticed amongst the insurance industry who reported at the 162 annual meeting of theAmerican Psychiatric Association in May 2009 that:28 percent of adult drivers with ADHD reported receiving a citation withing the prior twelve months. 34 percent reported being in an auto collision. 44 percent reported either a citation or a collision.The standardized field sobriety tests are divided-attention tests.  Given these statistics,...

Continue reading

The Limits of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests

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 insubstantial 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. Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372 (2003), wherein the court indicated that errors that...

Continue reading

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: You Can’t Say That!

"The notion that an officer may testify and estimate that a person, based on his or her Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus results, will test over the statutory limit a certain percentage of the time is alarming."  This is not the opinion of an OVI defense attorney, but the opinion of the 4th District Court of Appeals in State v. Martin, 2005-Ohio-1732 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. Pickaway County 2005)(error found to be harmless in light of the other evidence adduced).  Therein, the court found it was error for the trial court to permit the arresting officer to testify that four or...

Continue reading

Defending The Accusation Of Slurred Speech (by DaytonDUI)

A very common observation by law enforcement in an impaired driving investigation is the presence of "slurred speech."  Experience trial counsel will look to the totality of evidence to combat the damning accusation of slurred speech.Many traffic stops are now captured on video tape.  As the quality of the recordings has improved we are often able to hear exactly what the officer is hearing.  Reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not the speech on a video is "slurred" and whether or not it was fair for the officer to describe the speech as slurred.  Another, more subtle method...

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