- CAR SEARCHES ARISING OUT OF TRAFFIC STOPS AND THE VOLUNTARINESS OF CONSENT TO SEARCH
- New Speedy Trial Clock for New Charges Based on Lab Results
- DUS Requires Movement
- Providing a Good Defense – Obtaining Discovery and Public Records
- The Community Caretaking Doctrine and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness
Category Archives: OVI
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 […]
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 […]
SPEEDY TRIAL CHEAT SHEET for Criminal Defense Attorneys and Prosecutors. By Chris Greene, Esq. with assistance from Robert Walton, Esq. (5-11-21)
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.
State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, R.C. 4511.19(D)(4), and State v. Schmitt, 101 Ohio St.3d 79 piece together when the state can introduce evidence (through testimony and video) concerning the results of standardized field sobriety tests (SFST’s) in any criminal prosecution for OVI. Simply stated, the standard for consideration of the results on the […]
One of the primary concerns of a person who has been arrested for OVI is the administrative license suspension (ALS) imposed against the driver’s license for refusing or “failing” a chemical test. The ALS is authorized under R.C. 4511.191, Ohio’s “Implied Consent” statute. This post is meant to generate some ideas, through the use of advocacy and […]
The Statutory Definition of “Operate” Applies to Operating Under the Influence and Operating Under a License Suspension
The First District Court of Appeals recently established that the same statutory definition of “operate” applies to both OVI and DUS. R.C. Title 45 governs motor vehicles. The entire title contains only one definition of the word “operate”. That definition is found in R.C. 4511.01 (HHH). According to the introductory language to the definitions in […]
Submitted by Co Authors Robert G. Walton and Gretchen Ebner People often confuse the meanings of, and relationships between, disqualification and suspension relative to a commercial driver’s license (CDL). The holder of a CDL can be subject to disqualification and/or suspension.