Ohio DUI/OVI Library

Liaison to Ohio DUI Task Force Busted for Drunk Driving

Police officer also charged with having a loaded gun during DUI arrest.

Lt. Terrell LaTour, with the Sharon Township police department, serves on the Franklin County DUI Task Force. He was stopped for traffic violations around 2:30 am in a Columbus suburb last weekend and charged with driving under the influence in Ohio.

LaTour, 52, refused to submit to field sobriety tests or blood alcohol tests, and his driver’s license was immediately suspended. He was charged with speeding, Ohio DUI, failure to signal, failure to stay in his lanes. Because he was in possession of a loaded .38 caliber pistol while intoxicated, he was also charged with felony improper handling of a firearm.

The Sharon Township police chief has not issued a comment. LaTour is due to be arraigned in Franklin County Municipal Court August 15.

Have you been arrested for OVI in Columbus, Ohio? You need to hire a Franklin County, OH DUI Lawyer.

Cops Cheat on Ohio DUI Exam

Troopers shared answers on Breathalyzer certification test.

An organized cheating scandal has been exposed at an Ohio state highway patrol post. The troopers were sharing answers to an examination to become proficient in the use of breath testing equipment. That equipment is used in cases of suspected drunk driving in Ohio.

Only troopers who have certification from the Ohio Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Testing are allowed to administer a breath test, and officers must pass an annual written renewal exam.

In March of 2007 a trooper taking the 50 question, multi-choice test photocopied the test and his answers when the test administrator left the room. That trooper then shared his copies with other troopers scheduled to take the test. The scheme was discovered when a trooper was caught using a cheat sheet during the exam this year. The test is reportedly not that difficult, so there was dismay when an investigation revealed that troopers were even copying incorrect answers. Even though the investigation has focused only on state troopers to this point, there are allegations of cheating at several local law enforcement agencies.

The cheating was so rampant and open that state highway patrol superiors knew of the exchange of test answers.

The Ohio Inspector General has expressed concern over the public perception of the cheating, especially how it may call into doubt the validity of breath tests administered during a traffic stop for driving under the influence in Ohio. Under Ohio DUI laws being found guilty of Ohio DUI/OVI can rest solely on the evidence produced from a breath test for blood alcohol content. Having a trooper who is not proficient in the application of the test could result in a false reading would lead to a false arrest and substantial costs, fines and consequences.

The state has changed the test questions and instated a rule that the test administrator remain in the testing room. Those caught cheating have been given either an oral reprimand or a three day suspension.

Do you need to hire a DUI Lawyer in Ohio?

Ohio DUI Bill May Violate Constitution

Ohio Bill expected to be signed by Governor Strickland allowing for blood drawn in Ohio drunk driving cases.

Governor Ted Strickland is expected to sign legislation that will give police greater powers to force a blood or urine sample from certain motorists. The bill would allow police to demand samples from drivers who have been convicted of driving under the influence in Ohio two or more times.

Under current Ohio DUI laws a warrant must be obtained from a judge if the motorist declines to submit a blood sample. The new bill would make the blood draw a requirement even without a warrant. Opponents of the plan point out that a repeat DUI offender could be stopped for any traffic infraction, not just suspicion of drunk driving, before being asked to submit a blood sample. Those states that have provisions for warrantless blood draws usually limit the action to situations where a driver involved in an accident involving an injury or fatality is suspected of impaired driving.

The Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is expected to challenge the new law on the basis of constitutionality.

If you have been arrested for DUI/OVI in Ohio, you will need to hire an Ohio DUI attorney for representation on your drunk driving charge.

Ohio DUI Laws Strengthened

Legislators pass law increasing penalties and treatment for those convicted of drunk driving in Ohio.

State lawmakers approved a bill last week that strengthened the laws against repeat offenses for drinking and driving in Ohio. The legislation includes making ignition interlock devices mandatory after a second Ohio DUI conviction, establishing a database of chronic repeat drunk drivers, increasing fines and fees for drunk driving and immobilizing a repeat DUI offender’s vehicle.

In addition to increasing penalties for driving under the influence in Ohio, the law calls for establishing more alcohol treatment centers and providing financial assistance for alcohol rehabilitation of indigents. The treatment aspect has been received well as an effort to break the cycle of alcohol abuse and chronic drunk driving.

Statistics show that approximately 36,000 motorists in the state had at least five Ohio drunk driving convictions, and studies show that the use of ignition interlock devices reduces the incidents of repeat DUI offenses.

If you have been arrested for OVI in Ohio you need an experienced OH DUI attorney.

Prosecutor Objects to Sealing of Candidate’s Ohio DUI Arrest Records

Candidate for County Commissioner must have felony record sealed in order to hold office.

Jefferson County prosecutor Tom Straus has filed an objection over the sealing of the arrest record of Steve Vukelic. Vukelic is running for the position of County Commissioner, but he has two misdemeanor arrests for drunk driving in Ohio and a felony charge that allegedly involved the bribing of public officials. According to Ohio law, he cannot hold office unless the record is sealed.

The prosecutor stated that the court does not have the authority to seal the record because of the convictions for driving under the influence in Ohio. That is not allowed under new Ohio law.

Vukelic acknowledges the DUI arrests though he says one was expunged. He also disputes the petition’s claim that his felony conviction involved bribery. Vukelic plans to address the issue at a county commissioners meeting, and he says he ultimately hopes the voters have the opportunity to decide if they want him to hold office.

If you have been arrested for drunk driving or OVI in Ohio, you will need to hire a DUI lawyer in Ohio for legal representation.

Ohio Woman Has DUI Thrown Out

Court reverses conviction because traffic stop was not justified

Jodirae B. Brown of Cortland, Ohio had her DUI conviction overturned by the 11th District Court of Appeals. The reason cited was a lack of sufficient evidence to warrant the traffic stop that lead to the arrest.

Brown was charged with drunk driving three years ago by a Liberty police officer for allegedly driving ‘somewhat erratic’. The officer said he stopped Ms. Brown around 2:00 am for a marked lane violation, though in cross-examination at a suppression hearing held in Girard Municipal Court he admitted that Brown had stayed entirely in her lane.

The court ruling stated, “In this case, the record does not reveal any [indication] of erratic driving behind some modest weaving by Mrs. Brown in her own lane of traffic.” The Ohio DUI charge against Brown was ordered returned to the Municipal Court so they can proceed in line with the Appeals Court ruling.

Ohio Law Targets Repeat DUI Offenders

Ohio legislators want to strengthen Ohio DUI laws

State lawmakers in Ohio want to cut the number of repeat drunk drivers on the road and reduce alcohol related accidents and highway deaths. Ohio Highway Patrol statistics show a high number of accidents involving drunk drivers with previous DUI convictions, and their blood alcohol content results were well above the legal limit.

Ohio Senate Bill 17 would require those with two or more drunk driving convictions to submit to a blood or breath test to determine blood alcohol content (BAC). This would close a current legal loophole that allows motorists to refuse such tests and potentially avoid prosecution. A person found guilty of at least two Ohio DUI arrests in a six-year period would have their car impounded and their license suspended for at least a year. The Ohio Department of Public Safety would be required to maintain a registry of DUI offenders who have been arrested five or more times in the previous 20 years. This information would be made available to the public. A driver with three or more DUI convictions would be required to install an ignition interlock device.

The proposed legislation includes efforts to rehabilitate chronic alcohol abusers, such as mandatory alcohol treatment classes and use of alcohol monitoring devices to detect alcohol consumption.

Some of the measures outlined in SB17 are already at the disposal of the courts though the new law allows the penalties to be applied at an earlier point. The bill is currently being debated in the Senate. It must also go through the House before it could find its way to the governor.

Proposed Ignition Interlock Devices Could Mean Jail for Innocent Motorists

Columbus Ohio DUI lawyer Brad Koffel claims equipment is not relaible

The Ohio legislature is considering a bill that would require the installation of an alcohol ignition interlock devices in vehicles owned by those convicted of drunk driving. The idea is receiving a generally favorable response from the public, though DUI defense attorneys want to make sure everyone knows the downside of the equipment. Specifically the possibility of false readings that could result in an innocent motorist being jailed for probation violation.

Columbus DUI lawyer Brad Koffel has successfully challenged the accuracy and reliability of ignition interlock devices in court. Koffel states, “these small machines are not specific for alcohol, are too sensitive to outside temperature changes, are not compatible with new electronics in newer car models, are easily tricked, provide more false positives than true positive results, and that is before you get around to the lack of training for the folks who are installing them for the courts.”

DUI defense lawyer Koffel recently represented a businessman who was ordered to install an ignition interlock device in his vehicle after being convicted of an Ohio DUI. The client had dutifully used the equipment for 10 months before attempting to start his SUV. The company that installed and monitors the device then sent a letter to the courts saying that Koffel's client had failed two times. That suggested the motorist had consumed alcohol before attempting to start his vehicle. Despite his denials of drinking and driving, he faced almost six months in jail for violating the terms of his probation.

An investigation conducted by Koffel showed the interlock device had actually recorded 35 'failures', not two, indicating persistent, questionable readings from the equipment. The president of the interlock company admitted that many foods, other than alcohol, can cause false positives. Fortunately, one of the 'failures' was recorded when the accused motorist was documented as being in Koffel's office.

As a result of Koffel's findings, the presiding judge in the case ordered the immediate removal of the ignition interlock device from the defendant's vehicle. In his summary, the judge questioned the science and legitimacy of the devices.

The unreliability of ignition interlock devices is resulting in unusual actions on the part of motorists. Koffel says, “We are learning that clients are simply leaving their vehicles on with the doors locked instead of turning off the vehicle and running the risk that it will take 15 – 90 minutes for the interlock to permit them to start the vehicle again.” Koffel and other Ohio DUI defense attorneys hope that legislatures fully investigate the reliability of the equipment and question the claims of manufacturer's before passing a law that could result in people being wrongly accused of violating their probation and being sent to jail.

Brad Koffel limits his practice to DUI defense. He is a member of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers DUI / OVI Task Force. Mr. Koffel can be contacted through dwi.com/ohio/franklin-county.

BMV Lets Customers Access Records Online

BMV Lets Customers Access Records Online
Motorists also can renew their registration, schedule a driver's test and more.
By Lauren Dunford

The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles instituted a new customer service feature Friday that enables motorists to obtain unofficial copies of their driving records online.

"Drivers will be able to make sure that their driving record as they know it is consistent with what the BMV has," said Fred Stratmann, BMV spokesman.

"People are unaware of how many points they have on their license," he said.

With the new feature, motorists can access that information, stay up to date on traffic violation requirements and prevent the potential for license suspension or arrest.

In addition to viewing driving records online, motorists can renew their vehicle registration, schedule a driver's test, record a change of address and access the state's online organ donor registry.

Drivers also can view their license issue date as part of a new identity theft prevention feature added last month. A feature allowing customers to view license reinstatement information is in the works.

The customer service page was widely used even before the addition of the driving records feature, with more than 600,000 online vehicle registration renewals to date.

"Anytime you can provide services to your customers that makes it more convenient for them to do things the state requires them to do, it's a success," Stratmann said.

"We've been working hard on customer feedback on the things they would like to see. We're making more features available to the public for their convenience."

Source: http://www.daytondailynews.com

Ohio Court Rules on Hospital's Certification

Aggravating the DUI Menace

October 6, 2005

The Ohio Supreme Court's narrow decision in a Dayton aggravated vehicular homicide case will be cheered by criminal defense lawyers throughout the Buckeye State, but it seriously obstructs public efforts to rid the highways of dangerous drunken drivers.

The court, voting 4-3 in a ruling written by Justice Judith Lanzinger, threw out the conviction of John Mayl, who was at the wheel of a pickup truck that struck and killed a construction worker, Lorna Dingess, 30. The woman was part of a work crew repairing potholes on I-75 in Dayton around midnight on Nov. 19, 2000.

About 40 minutes after the incident, a sample of Mayl's blood was taken in a hospital during treatment for minor injuries. The test put his blood-alcohol content at 0.207, more than twice the state's 0.08 threshold to prove drunken driving and, thus, aggravated vehicular homicide.

It would seem like a slam-dunk case, but the court ruled the test was invalid and threw out the conviction because the hospital was not certified by the state health department to perform the forensic procedure for use in court, and because it disposed of the blood sample within five days rather than holding it for one year.

According to the court decision, no one quibbled with the accuracy of the blood test, or claimed that the blood analysis was conducted improperly by hospital personnel or the laboratory.

While we are mindful that the law must be scrupulously followed, this is one of those cases that rends the heart of anyone who expects justice in the courts. The perpetrator of the crime is acquitted, but the victim is still dead.

Mayl, who had objected to the blood test but was told it was needed for medical reasons, did not go entirely unpunished. He pleaded no contest, was given a four-year prison term, and served a year before being released on appeal.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court - which reversed opinions by at least six state appellate courts with its ruling - has made it unnecessarily difficult for authorities to gain convictions in drunken driving cases. None of Toledo's hospitals currently is certified by the state for these particular tests, even though doing so seems to be largely a matter of paperwork rather than expertise or equipment.

This means that perfectly competent hospitals and laboratories must now go to the considerable extra trouble of obtaining health department permits, or the legislature must amend the law, or both. The sooner a solution is accomplished, the safer that motorists will be in this state.

The DUI law already is among the most complicated and heavily nuanced statutes in Ohio's law books, a legacy of the bad old days when drunken driving was winked at rather than vigorously prosecuted. Creating an additional hoop for authorities to jump through to get convictions is probably not what the court intended, but that is the practical effect of its ruling.

It is especially distressing when the list of Ohioans with a dozen or more DUI arrests continues to grow.

Toledo Blade

More:

---

Glitch in DUI May Be Trend

Oct. 06, 2005 Judge tosses out a charge because a breath test operator was not certified on particular machine.

By DAVID WEISS dweiss@leader.net

WILKES-BARRE ­ A judge's ruling that stopped a police officer from testifying about a man's blood-alcohol level in a drunken-driving case could weaken other cases, attorneys said.

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Senior Judge Patrick Toole on Tuesday ruled Wayman Miers, an officer at the county's DUI Processing Center, could not testify about the suspect's blood-alcohol level because Miers was not certified to operate a particular breath-test machine.

An official at the center insists Miers is certified and the decision just highlights a mix up regarding the equipment used at the center.

Miers used the center's Breathalyzer, called an Intoxilyzer 5000EN, to learn David Kresge had a blood-alcohol level of 0.21 percent after he drove a vehicle into a Wilkes-Barre building in November. An adult driver is considered intoxicated with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08.

Kresge's attorney, Joseph Albert, challenged Miers' qualifications to operate the machine saying Miers was certified on the Intoxilyzer 5000, not the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, so he should not be allowed to testify.

Toole agreed, and one count of drunken driving was dismissed.

The jury still convicted Kresge on a separate drunken-driving charge that does not require a blood-alcohol level.

Despite the conviction, attorneys say the ruling will shorten Kresge's sentence and could impact all pending cases from the center.

Under the drunken-driving law, Kresge would have most likely faced a sentence of 90 days to five years in prison based on the high blood-alcohol level and a prior drunken-driving arrest, said local defense attorney Ferris Webby .

Because the blood-alcohol level charge was dismissed, that level could not be used against Kresge at his sentencing, Webby said.

That should reduce Kresge's sentence to five days to six months in prison, Webby said.

Webby said the new drunken-driving law has defense attorneys scrambling for ways to fight the blood-alcohol level because the punishment increases with higher levels.

Because of the ruling, he expects defense attorneys handling drunken-driving cases to subpoena more records related to the testing .

The center's coordinator, Frank Martin, said he and the center's other processing officers have certification cards indicating they are qualified to operate the Intoxilyzer 5000. The certification makes no reference to any specific model number, Martin said.

He said he checked with the state when the center began using the EN model about eight years ago. The state said the officers needed no additional certification to operate the newer model, according to Martin.

Besides, he said, the officers do nothing different in operating either of the machines or analyzing results. The only difference in the machines is an internal element, he said.

"It's like buying a Chevrolet Impala. You could get a four-door, you could get a two-door," Martin said. "It's not going to make the car run any different. It's just a loophole they found."

Defense Attorney James Haggerty said the state's departments of health and transportation set up the rules regarding the breath tests.

Those rules call for a processing officer to be trained on the "particular" machine they are using to take the sample, Haggerty said.

What the word "particular" means, though, is the critical issue, he said.

"Decide what particular means," Haggerty said. "Does it mean the Intoxilyzer 5000, all versions, or does it mean the Intoxilyzer 5000 version one, version two, or version nine?"

Haggerty said he has never raised this issue in a drunken-driving case. But it could become more of an issue after Toole's ruling.

"I think that any lawyer that has a DUI case will need to carefully examine whether the DUI examiner is certified for the particular machine," he said.

The center handles hundreds of drunken-driving cases per year and is open to all Luzerne County police departments during its operating hours of 9 p.m. through 5 a.m., Thursday through Sunday.

Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney C. David Pedri said he argued against Albert's challenge in the Kresge case, claiming the machine Miers used requires no different skills than the machine Miers was certified to use.

"It's operated the same way," he said. "That's my understanding."

Pedri conceded the ruling will likely reduce Kresge's sentence, but Pedri said he will not appeal the ruling because he still secured a conviction.

The prosecutor said he will try to do some legal research on the issue to advise the center of any changes that are needed.

But Haggerty, who is also the mayor of Kingston, said he does not fault the processing center for any errors. He believes any errors that occurred at the center should be attributed to the "complexity of the rules."

Haggerty praised the work of the center, saying it helps police officers and communities save money and time.

David Weiss, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7397
See Article: Times Leader