What does “Physical Control” mean?  Ohio’s Physical Control Statute, O.R.C. 4511.194, became effective on 1/1/05.  Physical Control is similar to an Ohio OVI/Ohio DUI charge in that it deals with being in a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs of abuse with one exception, Physical Control does not require that the vehicle have ever been driven or even started.

 

   The best example of a Physical Control violation is the person who staggers out of the tavern and decides to “sleep it off” in their vehicle.  Often times what happens is the person starts the car, either to run the air conditioner or the heater, so the vehicle is actually running, then goes to sleep.  However, one need not have the car running or even have the keys in the ignition in order to be in violation of O.R.C. 4511.194 – Physical Control.  Under the statute, having the keys within reach will satisfy the definition of having “physical control.”   The physical control statute was essentially designed to “reward” or rather, not punish as severely, the person who drinks too much (or uses drugs of abuse) and then gets into their car, but decides not to actually drive.  

   For a list of the attorneys in your area that can help you defend a physical control charge, check out the Attorney Directory at www.OVILAW.com.

   There is an overwhelming opinion amongst the general public (or maybe just the drinking public) that a first offense Ohio OVI / DUI should be, or at least can be, reduced to a reckless operation charge.  Can this really happen?  Well, it depends in large part on a number of things, including, but not limited to:

 

1.                  The prosecutor’s attitude toward OVI / DUI charges;

2.                  The Court (or Judge’s) attitude toward OVI / DUI charges;

3.                  The actual facts of your case, including such facts as:

a.       Was there a breath test performed and if so, how high (or low) was the result;

b.      Was there an accident or bad driving; and

c.       Where you polite and cooperative to the arresting officer.

 

   These are but a few of the many considerations that will be considered when the prosecutor and your OVI attorney / DUI attorney sit down to discuss the possible out come at a pre-trial conference.   This is not to say that if you had a low breath test and you were polite and cooperative that it guarantees a reduction of your charge, in fact, many courts (or prosecutors) take a “no reduction” or “zero tolerance” approach with OVI / DUI charges. As a matter of fact, some prosecutors will "reduce" an OVI /DUI if the defendant refused to do a breath test because they don't know whether they are reducing a case where the person would have blown a 0.20 or a 0.02.  Does this mean you should always do a breath test?  My answer is NO!  You should ALWAYS ask to talk to an attorney who knows OVI / DUI defense before willingly taking a breath, blood or urine test.

    Since the reduction policy of each court and/or prosecutor may vary, it is important to find an attorney who is familiar with the court and prosecutor that you will be facing in your OVI / DUI case.  For a list of attorneys who handle these cases in the court that you will be going to, check out the Attorney Directory on www.OVILAW.com.

 

On August 17, 2006, Ohio's DUI law underwent it's "umpteenth-billion" change.  This time the change included "per se" limits for certain drugs that can be found in blood or urine.  Some of the drugs are legal (with prescriptions) and some are not.  But the fact remains that some of these drugs can remain in your system LONG after the substances quit effecting our brains and accordingly, our ability to operate motor vehicles.

Despite the change however, the number of cases that have been filed under this updated version of the Ohio DUI/ Ohio OVI law has remained extremely low.  See the June 6, 2006 post for the substances and actual levels listed in the new law.

WWW.OVILAW.com is quickly becoming the spot to find everything you need to know about DUI, drunk driving, OVI charges in Ohio.  WWW.OVILAW.com has almost every municipal and county court listed (searchable by county) with a "click here" to get directions to the court.  WWW.OVILAW.com also has over 500 Ohio law enforcement agencies listed (by county) so the attorney members can access important information about the agencies who are issuing OVI citations. Finally, the list of attorneys who handle OVI, DUI, drunk driving cases is growing and again, is searchable by county on the ATTORNEY DIRECTORY. 

   This past week, the 4th District Court of Appeals in Ohio published a decision which addressed the admissibility of the PBT (portable breath test - aka, the hand-held breath test).  The defendant in State v. Shuler, 2006-Ohio-4336, wanted to admit the PBT result that showed he was under the illegal limit (it showed .078) and the trial judge said NO!  Defendant entered a no contest plea then appealed the issue.  The 4th District held that they have always allowed the test result to be admitted for purposes of "probable cause to arrest" but they could never consent to it being admitted at trial because it is "inherently unreliable."  That's right, 3 court of appeals judges unanimously agreed that a device they called INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE can be considered for probable cause to arrest!!!  Specifically, they said "PBT results are considered inherently unreliable because they ''may register an inaccurate percentage of alcohol in the breath, and may also be inaccurate as to the presence or absence of any alcohol at all.''"   

Is anyone out there as amazed as I?  I find it absolutely amazing that a court can allow ANY evidence to be admitted if it is INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE, no matter what type of hearing it's for.  Is this decision telling us there is a different standard for the State than for Defendants? 

For those persons who are in search of information on Ohio drunk driving, Ohio DUI, Ohio OVI charges, check out OVILaw.com, the newest and most comprehensive website for information on DUI or drunk driving charges in Ohio.  Find a listing of attorneys who handle Ohio DUI or drunk driving cases, see OVILaw.com's Attorney Directory and search by county.

And for those attorneys who are looking for information on various police agencies (their policy and procedures for DUI OVI investigations) or for information on specific police officers, check out OVILaw.com's Police Officer and Police Data link.  This site will prove to become the most comprehensive website for those accused of DUI OVI drunk driving in Ohio and for those who fight Ohio DUI OVI drunk driving cases.  The Case Law update section, available to members (for as little as $250.00 a year) will have summaries of Ohio's most recent appeallate decsions, the caption, date of decision and a link to the full text version at the Court's web site.

OVILaw.com is a must visit website for anyone with any interest in fighting a DUI OVI drunk driving case in Ohio.

For those interested in finding out additional information about Ohio OVI offenses, how to beat your ovi, OVI attorney directory, free attorney consultations, dui law updates and other useful information for beating an ovi/winning a dui in Ohio, check out OVILAW.COM.  This site should be on-line by June 30, 2006.

   Ohio's General Assembly is at it again!  With the Passage of Senate Bill 8, signed by Governor Taft on May 11, 2006, it will soon be illegal to drive if you have the metabolites (the residual effects of THC) of marijuana in your blood or urine.
   
   It is a well accepted scientific fact that after smoking marijuan, the active ingredient, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) can be found in measureable amounts for up to 2 -4 weeks.  Despite the facts posted by the Amercian Council for Drug Education, which states that the "short-term effects wear off within two to three hours"  Basic Facts About Drugs: Marijuana, American Council for Drug Education, our Ohio law makers passed this law with blatent disregard to scientific facts and common sense - of course, why should these politicians do anything based on fact or common sense when that often doesn't garner votes?

   The fact of the matter is, our current OVI/DUI law provides for prosecution of those individuals whose ability to operate a vehicle is impaired from drug use, whether it's marijuana, cough syrup, heroine, cocaine, or any other drug.  Prosecutors have been successfully prosecuting those who are truly impaired from drugs with out the of laboratory "Per Se" levels which are as follows:  (ALL RESULTS ARE EXPRESSED AS NG/ML)

                                    URINE         Blood             4511.19 (J)           
 
     Amphetamines         > 500              >100           4511.19 (J)(1)
   Cocaine                   > 150              > 50              4511.19 (J)(2)
   Cocaine Metabolite  > 150               > 50              4511.19 (J)(3)
   Heroin                     > 2000             > 50              4511.19 (J)(4)
   Heroin Metabolite      > 10               > 10              4511.19 (J)(5)
   L.S.D.                     > 25                > 10              4511.19 (J)(6)
   Marijuana                 > 10               > 2                4511.19 (J)(7)
   Marijuana Metabolite  > 15              >5                 4511.19 (J)(8)(i)
   Marijuana Metabolite  > 35              > 50              4511.19 (J)(8)(ii)
   Methamphetamine      > 500           > 100            4511.19 (J)(9)
   Phencyclidine (PCP)   > 25             > 10              4511.19 (J)(10)

  This most recent addition to the OVI law will go into effect in August of 2006, but will it truly make a difference to anyone whose name isn't on a ballot?  For aggressive defense of OVI/DUI cases, whether they are alchol or drug related, contact Jeff Meadows.

  
   

A bill recently introduce in New York would make it MANDATORY that ALL automobiles have ignition interlock devices on them by 2010.  Ignition interlock devices are essentially breathalyzers that must be blown into before the car will start.  Currently, in Ohio, the ignition interlock is an available option for judges sentencing any  OVI/DUI defendant, whether it is a 1st offense or repeat offense. 

This type of legislation was introduced in Arizona but was never passed.  From a practical standpoint, I would expect the auto makers to strenuously oppose this type of mandate.  Not only would it be costly to install (a cost that would obviously be passed to the consumer), but it also presents a potential liability nightmare if a person is able to get a vehicle started, despite the interlock, and ends up injuring or killing someone.  Is the car manufacturer going to get sued?  You bet! 

An article in the USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-04-24-breathalyzer-usat_x.htm) cites to a Hamilton County, Ohio study that suggests the device is effective, however at present, the Courts can only require the device for the period during which the persons license is restricted. 

While the interlock device is common in Hamilton County OVI's and Clermont County OVI'S, it is not ordered nearly as often in Butler County OVI's or Warren County OVI's.

For additional information regarding the ignition interlock device in Hamilton County, Butler County, Warren County or Clermont County OVI's, contact OVI attorney Jeff Meadows at (513)777-2222.

   Since the Ohio Supreme Court decide State v. Vega (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 185, those accused of drunk driving (now called OVI) are prohibited from challenging the science and procedures used by the government to test a persons breath alcohol concentration.  Despite the fact that this flies in the face of Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Ohio Constitution, our courts continue to endorse this policy.
   Most recently, in State v. Sabo, 2006-Ohio-1521, the 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision to prohibit the Defendant from offering an expert witness from testifying about the inadequacies of Ohio's testing procedure.  Namely, Defendant's theory was that he suffered from GERD (also known as acid reflux) and that the single breath test procedure utilized in Ohio is not sufficient to ensure against inflated breath tests resulting from stomach gasses mixing with exhaled deep-lung air.  The testimony that Defendant's expert witness would have provided to the jury would have stated that two (2) seperate breath tests should be taken to protect against faulty results.  In theory, if the 2 tests were within 0.02 of one another, presumably, the results would be worthy of relying upon and would thereby be given the "presumption" of accuracy as intended by Ohio laws. 
   Why doesn't Ohio perform dual breath testing just as almost 1/2 of the rest of the States do? Quite simply because the legislative and administrative branches of goverment in Ohio aren't concerned about good evidence collection.   According to Mr. Sabo's expert witness, Dr. Al Staubus, Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology at Ohio State University, the dual testing procedure was adopted in 1986 by the National Safety Counsel's Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs Subcomittee on Technology, yet Ohio continues to reject the adoption of sound and fundamental scientific protocols that would further protect those accused of drunk driving (OVI). 
   Many other valid issues were virgorously argued by Mr. Sabo's attorney, Cleve Johnson, however, the 10th District Court of Appeals rejected all arguments.