Author Archives: Robert Walton, Esq.
SAMPLES OBTAINED BY POLICE (BREATH, BLOOD AND URINE) Statutory Exclusionary Rule – R.C. 4511.19(D)(1)(b). Applicable in any criminal prosecution for OVI-Impaired, OVUAC, or OVI Per se. See also State v. Mayl, 106 Ohio St.3d 207, 2005-Ohio-4629, which clarifies it extends to all offenses which have OVI as an element. Court may admit evidence of the […]
This post contains a summary and discussion of several cases that have shaped Fourth Amendment search and seizure law related to traffic stops and car searches: Robinette II and III– A lawful traffic stop ended. Was consent to search a car given during the subsequent unlawful detention voluntary and the product of free will? Caballes – […]
Andre Sanford was in a crash in October 2016. He struck a motorcycle, killing the driver and left the scene. An hour later he surrendered, admitted that he had been drinking and smoking weed, and submitted to a blood test. Sometime later the test results indicated a prohibited amount of marijuana metabolites in his system. […]
Many years ago there was not a statutory definition of operate and court decisions broadly interpreted the meaning of the word in OVI and DUS cases to include being in a position to move a car with the keys in the ignition. About 20 years ago the legislature enacted a physical control statute and added […]
One of the things Phil Korey taught me is perseverance in investigating a criminal case. A part of that is making full use of Crim. R. 16, due process, the Public Records Act and our intuition. Crim R. 16. It’s always good to review what must be provided by the state in response to a […]
A car is parked on the shoulder of a freeway late at night. It is not impeding traffic and nobody has called the police about the car. It does not appear to be damaged and there are not any people standing outside of it. The weather is good. A police officer pulls off to the berm […]
By Robert G. Walton Esq. and Danielle Muster, his law clerk. On June 24, 2021, Supreme Court of Ohio decided State v. Tidwell, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-2072, which stemmed from a motion to suppress in an OVI case. Early in the opinion the Court stated that the principal issue was whether a police officer had […]
Lange v. California: “No Categorical Warrantless Search Exception” Where Misdemeanant Flees into Home
By Robert G. Walton Esquire and Danielle Muster, his law clerk. On June 23, 2021, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in Lange v. California, 594 U. S. ____(2021). The principal issue was whether the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into […]
Often, a person who has been detained (Terry stop, traffic stop) is “in custody ” for Miranda purposes before a formal arrest occurs. That is important because the procedural safeguards adopted by Miranda become necessary once a defendant is taken into custody.
A Template-Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of a Chemical Test Refusal from Being Heard by a Jury
In cases where the facts make it appropriate, the following sets forth a framework for excluding evidence of a refusal as proof of guilt in an OVI case and as proof of the element of refusal in an OVI-refusal with a prior OVI in the past 20 years case.