Refuting Police Officer’s Claim that You Refused to Take DUI Test
In some cases, an issue arises as to whether or not a person actually refused to test. This would seem a straightforward question, but not always. Take the following example:
You are driving home from watching a football game at a friends house and a deer jumps out in front of your car. You swerve to avoid it and your car goes off the road. It rolls a few times, and during the process you hit your head on something pretty hard.
The next thing your remember, you are waking up in the hospital a day later. You learn that the police have charged you with drunk driving, and for refusing to consent to alcohol testing. In the police report, it says that the officer came in and asked you to take the test and that you said no. They marked you down as refusing and now your license is under suspension for a full year.
You can remember none of this.
You will want to challenge your suspension at an ALS hearing and argue that when you “refused” the test, you had no capacity to make such a decision given the way that your head injury affected you. It will be a question of fact for the court to decide, but if you can provide medical records as well that show that you had a concussion, your attorney may be able to get the refusal thrown out and your license reinstated.
How an Ohio Lawyer Fights an Ohio DUI Charge
As an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio, I often assist clients in fighting DUI (now called OVI) charges. My goal is to get as much of the evidence against my client suppressed as I can. If I leave the prosecutor with too little evidence, he may be unsure whether or not he can get a DUI conviction. If that is the case, he will offer a plea bargain that my client can live with.
Here is how I go about defending a DUI case:
The very first thing I analyze when looking at a DUI or OVI case is whether or not the police officer used a proper traffic ticket (an Ohio Uniform Traffic Ticket as required by the Traffic Rules) and whether or not the police wrote the charges properly on the ticket. Very rarely, the police make a mistake here, not often, but often enough to check.
The second thing I analyze when looking at the facts of a DUI case is whether or not there was reasonable suspicion that my client violated any law. Usually the client is pulled over for a minor traffic violation like failing to use a turn signal or speeding. Any violation of the traffic laws, no matter how de minimis, even expired tags, is sufficient to allow the police officer to pull the driver over. But not all police officers have a firm grasp of what the traffic laws entail. Without reasonable suspicion that my client violated the law, the police officer’s act of pulling my client over in the first place is a violation of his Constitutional rights, the remedy for which, is suppression of the evidence.
Technorati Tags: dui, ovi, omvi, dui law, dui arrest, ohio dui law, dui conviction, dui charge, drunk driving
Ohio DUI Law: Required 20 Minutes and Mouth Alcohol
The Ohio Director of Health has mandated that the police observe you for 20 minutes before having you take a breath test. The reason for this is what is known as “mouth alcohol”. When you drink, some alcohol may remain in your mouth. This alcohol is pure and undiluted by your blood stream. As you blow into the breath test machine, traces of this undiluted alcohol may get into the machine and be tested along with the breath from your lungs. This will cause the reading to be abnormally high.
The Ohio Director of Health has determined that 20 minutes is sufficient to allow any mouth alcohol to dissipate and not affect the test. So if you were pulled over at 1:00 a.m. and tested at 1:17 a.m., then that test is likely going to be thrown out on your attorney’s motion to suppress since there is no way that you could have been observed for 20 minutes.
Get Your Motion to Preserve Evidence Filed Early
In Ohio, if the police destroy evidence that may be exculpatory (tending to prove the defendant’s innocence), this may be the basis for a dismissal of the case. In Arizona v. Youngblood (1988), 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a criminal defendant is denied due process of law by a state’s failure to preserve evidence. The court stated the following:
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in [Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215], makes the good or bad faith of the State irrelevant when the State fails to disclose to the defendant material exculpatory evidence.”
But what is “material exculpatory evidence” and how do you prove it if the evidence was destroyed before your attorney got to see it?
Read the story »
Ohio DUI Law - Refusal to Test?
In some cases, an issue arises as to whether or not a person actually refused to test. This would seem a straightforward question, but not always. Take the following example:
You are driving home from watching a football game at a friends house and a deer jumps out in front of your car. You swerve to avoid it and your car goes off the road. It rolls a few times, and during the process you hit your head on something pretty hard.
The next thing your remember, you are waking up in the hospital a day later. You learn that the police have charged you with drunk driving, and for refusing to consent to alcohol testing. In the police report, it says that the officer came in and asked you to take the test and that you said no. They marked you down as refusing and now your license is under suspension for a full year.
You can remember none of this.
You will want to challenge your suspension at an ALS hearing and argue that when you “refused” the test, you had no capacity to make such a decision given the way that your head injury affected you. It will be a question of fact for the court to decide, but if you can provide medical records as well that show that you had a concussion, your attorney may be able to get the refusal thrown out and your license reinstated.
Ohio DUI Law - Refusal to Take a Portable Breath Test
Most people are aware that there are penalties for refusing to take the alcohol test back at the station. But the police often pull out a hand held device called a Portable Breath Test (also known as a PBT) and ask that you take it. They will tell you that if it shows that you have not been drinking they will let you go. But they might not even if you pass, suspecting you of being under the influence of some drug other than alcohol.
The question is whether the read out of the PBT at the scene of the stop can come into evidence, either to establish probable cause or to establish guilt at trial. Ohio’s Eight District Court of Appeals has held that:
As the Third Appellate District explained, “the results of the PBT are inadmissible because the Ohio Department of Health no longer recognizes the test. Therefore, the results of the … PBT could not serve as probable cause to arrest the appellant for driving under the influence of alcohol.” State v. Ferguson, Defiance App. No. 4-01-34, 2002 Ohio 1763. See also State v. Anez (2000), 108 Ohio Misc. 2d 18, 738 N.E.2d 491.
So not only is there no penalty for refusing this test, but it isn’t even admissible into evidence. So taking it or not isn’t going to effect you negatively, and it might cause the officer to let you go.
Beat your DUI charge
How to beat your DUI Charge
DUI Process Manual
DMV Flow of Information Guide
Field Sobriety Test Secrets
Personalized Email Support
Featured DUI Video
Ohio DUI OVI Law News Update Dec. 1
DDN: Task force makes arrests over weekend at sobriety checkpoint
By Charles Rowland
The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, the Ohio State Highway Patrol and the Montgomery County Combined Agency OVI Task Force conducted an OVI sobriety checkpoint from 9:30 pm to 2 am Saturday, Nov. 29, on Lyons Road at Yankee Street. …
Charles M. Rowland II, DUI/OVI BLOG - http://blog.charlesrowland.com/blog
State high in repeat drunk drivers
Montgomery Advertiser - Montgomery,AL,USA
“We see a DUI as a fatality waiting to happen.” Since Murphy was named director of the Department of Public Safety two years ago, he has made reducing the …
OVI Checkpoint Stops Alleged Drunk, Drugged Drivers
WHIOtv.com - Dayton,OH,USA
WASHINGTON TWP., Ohio — Officers with Montgomery County’s OVI Taskforce conducted a road checkpoint Saturday evening to take impaired drivers off the …
Ohio’s New OVI Law Information | Cincinnati 3rd DUI Offense OH …
The new Ohio OVI law provides that some multiple offenders will be required to submit to a blood, breath or urine test when arrested for Physical Control, …
Ohio DUI Law News Update Nov 29
Troopers Hope To Grab Inebriated Drivers
North Central Ohio - Mansfield,OH,USA
The toll-free number to call from anywhere in Ohio is 1-800-GRAB-DUI. Call that number if you see anyone driving erratically or if you observe something …
DUI CHARGES(7)
Beaver County Times - Beaver,PA,USA
Simeon Howard, 28, of Austintown Township, Ohio, around 3:35 am Nov. 2 on the Beaver Valley Expressway in Brighton Township. …
Ohio Valley Man Facing Malicious Assault On A Police Officer
WTRF - Wheeling,WV,USA
He’s charged with DUI, fleeing and malicious assault on a police officer. He’s being held today in the Northern Regional Jail.
MADD scores state low in DUI report
Peoria Journal Star - Peoria,IL,USA
Among the other states that provided data on repeat DUI offenders, Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, California, Florida all had more repeat offenders than …
Indictments returned in Putnam County
Huntington Herald Dispatch - Huntington,WV,USA
John W. Ruby, 3 Jefferson Road, Hurricane, W.Va., driving on a revoked license-DUI related-third offense. Jonathan T. Simpson, 1142 Grandview Drive, …
The Speedy Trial Act and DUI/OVI charges
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a defendant charged with a crime like DUI/OVI be brought to trial in an expeditious fashion. However, it does not spell out any exact deadlines. The states are free to pass laws which give citizens more protections, but cannot pass laws that give citizens less protections than the minimum afforded by the U.S. Constitution. In Ohio, Ohio Revised Code Section 2945.71 is Ohio’s Speedy Trial Act. It was passed back in 1974 and gives more protections to Ohio citizens than the Sixth Amendment. R.C. 2945.71(B)(2) provides in pertinent part:
“…[A] person against whom a charge of misdemeanor, other than a minor misdemeanor, is pending in a court of record, shall be brought to trial as follows:… Within ninety days after the person’s arrest or the service of summons, if the offense charged is a misdemeanor of the first or second degree….”
Read the story »
Mandatory Days In Jail
Under Ohio law, if you are arrested for DUI/OVI and blow over .170, then face six days in jail, only three of which can be spent in a DIP (Driver’s Intervention Program). Ohio Revised Code Section 4511.19(A)(1)(h), even if this was your first offense of any kind, ever. Get ready for the jail jump suit, the baloney sandwiches and plastic juice bottles. This is the case even if the trial judge does not want to sentence you to days in jail.
For instance, Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals considered a case where the trial court, instead of sentencing the youthful female offender to three days in the program and three days in jail, sentenced her to two consecutive driver’s intervention programs. The prosecutor, wanting the young lady to spend time in jail, appealed the ruling and the First Appellate District Court held that:
Read the story »
Reasonable Suspicion for a Traffic Stop: Brake Light
There is a misconception among Ohio law enforcement officers that having a broken taillight is a traffic violation. They use this “violation” as an excuse to pull a driver over in the late night hours who is otherwise not driving erratically. From there, things go from bad to worse as the officer smells alcohol and notes other indicia of impairment, asks the driver to exit the vehicle and perform Field Sobriety Tests, thus establishing probable cause for arrest without a warrant for DUI.
But the problem is that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to pull a vehicle over in the first place. Absent such reasonable suspicion, all evidence gathered pursuant to the stop must be suppressed. There is case law in Ohio which stands for the proposition that having only one functioning taillight is legal.
Thus if, at the suppression hearing, your attorney gets the officer to testify that the only reason that he pulled you over was for the broken taillight, then it would be reversible error for the trial court not to suppress all evidence from the stop and onward, leaving the prosecutor with no evidence to place before a jury.
Read the story »
Reasonable Suspicion and Tipsters
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that before the police can stop a motorist there must be reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Usually this reasonable suspicion arises out of the police officer’s observations of the motorist’s driving. An investigative stop of a motorist does not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1 at 22.
“To justify a particular intrusion, the officer must demonstrate ’specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.’” Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d at 299. Evaluating the facts and inferences requires the court to consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances. State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291 paragraph one of syllabus.
Read the story »




