a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

substantial compliance Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "substantial compliance"

Ohio DUI Law: State v. Haneberg (HGN While Seated In Patrol Car)

The 9th District Court of Appeals issued a great decision on the issue of substantial compliance.  Specifically, the issue involved giving the HGN test while the Defendant was seated in the car.  The Court found that this was not substantial compliance. (State v. Haneberg 5/29/2007, 2007-Ohio-2561, 9th District Court of Appeals).  If you need a DUI/OVI attorney anywhere in Dayton or the Miami Valley, contact Charles M. Rowland II at 937-318-1DUI (318-1384) or visit www.DaytonDUI.com ....

Continue reading

Residual Mouth Alcohol, Slope Detectors and the 20 Minute Observation

One of the most prevalent causes of error in breath-alcohol analysis is the presence of alcohol in the mouth.  This residual mouth alcohol (hereinafter R.M.A.) contaminates the expired breath captured by the machine and elevates the test results radically.  The BAC Datamaster’s computer is programmed to assume that a breath test reading is 100% deep-lung (alveolar) air.  This captured “deep-lung” air is then multiplied by 2100 pursuant to the accepted and scientifically defensible partition ratio.[1] Using these built-in assumptions it is evident that a very small amount of undigested (or trapped) alcohol can have a disproportionate impact on the reading.At...

Continue reading

DUI LAW: Once There Was A Place Called Camelot

Image by Mr Mo-Fo via FlickrDON'T LET IT BE FORGOT, THAT ONCE THERE WAS A SPOT, FOR ONE BRIEF SHINING MOMENT, THAT WAS KNOWN AS CAMELOT. In State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 2000-Ohio-212, 732 N.E.2d 952 (2000),  the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of requiring the government to strictly comply with the standardized testing procedures set forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereinafter NHTSA).  NHTSA is the government agency tasked with determining what quasi-scientific tests are indicative of alcohol impairment.  The court concluded that "even minor deviations from the standardized procedures can severely...

Continue reading

OVI Case Law Update; State v. Sani

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]Twenty-Minute Observation Case (9th District Court of Appeals) State v. Sani, 2010-Ohio-2813 (9th Dist. Ct. App.) http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2010/2010-ohio-2813.pdfIn this case the Defendant is stopped for littering and is subsequently arrested for drunk driving.  The officer starts the observation period for purposes of the twenty-minute observation period as the time he begins the standardized field sobriety tests.  He placed the defendant under arrest and left the defendant in the car for four minutes while he attended to the vehicle and other matters.   Defendant challenged this as  a proper observation period and the trial court agreed.  What's...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law; State v. Verity (admission of the NHTSA manual)

State v. Verity, 2010-Ohio-1151, 2009CA00156 (OHCA5) This case originated in the Massillon Municipal Court.  Verity was arrested for OVI and at the motion to suppress, the Trooper testified that he administered the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests according to NHTSA guidelines but he did not testify as to what those guidelines are. The trial court overruled the Motion to Suppress and Verity appealed to the Fifth District.  Shot down, right? No, the judgment was reversed. "Appellant claims the trial court erred in finding the standardized field sobriety tests were conducted in substantial compliance with the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA)...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Lentz (Breath Test Regulations)

State v. Lentz, 2010-Ohio-762, 09 CAC 07 0065 (OHCA5) Here, in a case arising out the Delaware Municipal Court, defendant Lentz challenged the three-year record keeping requirement.  The court states as follows, Because of the very general nature of appellant's motion to suppress, specific evidence in response is not necessary, and general testimony of compliance is sufficient. See Columbus v. Morrison, Franklin App. No. 08AP-311, 2008-Ohio-5257; State v. Cook, Wood App. No. WD-04-029, 2006-Ohio-6062, at ¶ 31-33 (statement that police officer maintains log books for machine as required by rules and regulations of the Ohio Department of Health sufficient to show substantial compliance with record keeping...

Continue reading