When Officers Get It Wrong: Mistakes of Fact and Law in Ohio Traffic Stops

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
When Officers Get It Wrong: Mistakes of Fact and Law in Ohio Traffic Stops

Police officers make mistakes. Sometimes they misinterpret what they observe, and sometimes they misunderstand the law they enforce. The constitutional implications of these mistakes differ dramatically depending on their nature. While reasonable mistakes of fact may still support valid traffic stops, mistakes of law generally cannot justify even the briefest detention. Understanding this distinction and its consequences provides critical defenses when officers base traffic stops on erroneous beliefs.

Read More

DUI Checkpoints in Ohio: Constitutional Requirements and Your Rights

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
DUI Checkpoints in Ohio: Constitutional Requirements and Your Rights

Sobriety checkpoints represent one of the most controversial intersections of public safety and constitutional rights. While the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits suspicionless seizures, courts have carved out limited exceptions for properly conducted checkpoints. Understanding the strict requirements for constitutional checkpoints and recognizing when law enforcement fails to meet these standards can provide crucial defenses in OVI cases. Ohio law demands careful adherence to specific procedures that limit officer discretion and protect citizens from arbitrary enforcement.

Read More

When Police Contact Becomes a Constitutional Seizure: Understanding Consensual Encounters vs. Terry Stops in Ohio

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
When Police Contact Becomes a Constitutional Seizure: Understanding Consensual Encounters vs. Terry Stops in Ohio

Not every interaction between police and citizens implicates constitutional protections. Ohio law recognizes important distinctions between consensual encounters, which require no justification, and investigatory stops, which demand reasonable suspicion. Understanding when a police contact crosses the line from voluntary interaction to constitutional seizure can determine whether evidence obtained during the encounter is admissible. This distinction proves particularly crucial in OVI and traffic cases where initial police contact often begins informally.

Read More

When Officers Exceed Their Jurisdiction: Constitutional Violations in Ohio Traffic Stops

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
When Officers Exceed Their Jurisdiction: Constitutional Violations in Ohio Traffic Stops

Law enforcement officers in Ohio operate within carefully defined jurisdictional boundaries. When officers conduct traffic stops outside their lawful authority, they violate the Ohio Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. These jurisdictional violations can render traffic stops unconstitutional and lead to suppression of all evidence obtained. Understanding the limits of police authority and the enhanced protections provided by Ohio's Constitution offers crucial defenses in traffic and OVI cases.

Read More

When Officers Cannot Testify: Ohio's Marked Vehicle and Uniform Requirements in Traffic Cases

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
When Officers Cannot Testify: Ohio's Marked Vehicle and Uniform Requirements in Traffic Cases

Ohio law contains powerful but often overlooked provisions that can render law enforcement officers incompetent to testify in traffic and OVI cases. These statutes and evidentiary rules require officers primarily engaged in traffic enforcement to use marked vehicles and wear distinctive uniforms. When officers fail to meet these requirements, their testimony becomes inadmissible, potentially devastating the prosecution's case. Understanding these requirements and their application provides a critical defense tool in misdemeanor traffic cases.

Read More

Miranda Rights and OVI Investigations: When Officers Must Advise Drivers of Their Rights

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
Miranda Rights and OVI Investigations: When Officers Must Advise Drivers of Their Rights

The intersection of Miranda rights and OVI investigations presents complex constitutional questions that can significantly impact the outcome of drunk driving cases in Ohio. Understanding when law enforcement must provide Miranda warnings during traffic stops and OVI investigations is crucial for anyone facing these charges. The admissibility of statements made during an OVI stop often hinges on whether proper constitutional safeguards were in place.

Read More

Understanding the Community Caretaker Exception in Ohio DUI Cases

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smiht, ltd/
Understanding the Community Caretaker Exception in Ohio DUI Cases

Law enforcement officers frequently justify their initial contact with drivers based on the "community caretaker" or "emergency aid" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. This exception represents a critical area of constitutional law that every driver should understand, as it can significantly impact the validity of a traffic stop and any subsequent DUI investigation.

Read More

Understanding Ohio's Slow Speed Laws: When Driving Too Slowly Becomes a Crime

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
Understanding Ohio's Slow Speed Laws: When Driving Too Slowly Becomes a Crime

Most drivers worry about speeding tickets, but Ohio law also prohibits driving too slowly under certain circumstances. Understanding Ohio Revised Code 4511.22 and how courts interpret slow speed violations is crucial for anyone facing these charges, as the law is more complex than it initially appears and offers several potential defenses.

Read More

Understanding Ohio's Hit and Skip Laws: Three Different Statutes, Three Different Requirements and Penalties

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
Understanding Ohio's Hit and Skip Laws: Three Different Statutes, Three Different Requirements and Penalties

Being charged with "leaving the scene" or "hit and skip" in Ohio can be confusing because Ohio actually has three separate statutes governing these situations, each with different requirements and penalties. Understanding which statute applies to your situation is crucial, as prosecutors sometimes charge defendants under the wrong section, creating opportunities for defense.

Read More

The Lack of Convergence Test in Ohio DUI Cases: Another Non-Standardized Test Lacking Scientific Foundation

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
The Lack of Convergence Test in Ohio DUI Cases: Another Non-Standardized Test Lacking Scientific Foundation

When individuals face OVI (Operating a Vehicle while Impaired) charges in Ohio, they may encounter various physical and mental evaluations administered by law enforcement officers. While certain tests like the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand have achieved "standardized" status through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and undergone some validation research, officers frequently employ additional tests that lack this crucial recognition. The Lack of Convergence (LOC) test represents another questionable evaluation tool that creates significant vulnerabilities in the prosecution's case.

Read More

The Modified Romberg Test in Ohio DUI Cases: A Non-Standardized Test with Questionable Reliability

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
The Modified Romberg Test in Ohio DUI Cases: A Non-Standardized Test with Questionable Reliability

When facing an OVI (Operating a Vehicle while Impaired) charge in Ohio, defendants may find themselves subjected to various physical and mental tests administered by law enforcement officers. While certain tests like the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand are recognized as "standardized" by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and have undergone validation studies, officers frequently employ other tests that lack this crucial standardization. One such test that has become increasingly common is the Modified Romberg Balance (MRB) test.

Read More

The One Leg Stand Test: A Critical Examination of Its Validity in DUI Cases

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
The One Leg Stand Test: A Critical Examination of Its Validity in DUI Cases

The One Leg Stand (OLS) test constitutes the third field sobriety test in the standardized battery, yet its effectiveness as a reliable indicator of intoxication remains highly questionable. Despite law enforcement's reliance on this test, fundamental flaws in its design, administration, and interpretation cast serious doubt on its validity.

Read More

The Walk and Turn Test: A Critical Analysis of Its Reliability in DUI Cases

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
The Walk and Turn Test: A Critical Analysis of Its Reliability in DUI Cases

The Walk and Turn (WAT) test represents another cornerstone of field sobriety testing, yet its reliability merits significant scrutiny. While law enforcement portrays this test as an objective measure of impairment, numerous factors undermine its validity, making it a questionable tool for determining intoxication.

Read More

The HGN Test: A Critical Examination of Its Reliability in DUI Cases

/ Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd/
The HGN Test: A Critical Examination of Its Reliability in DUI Cases

The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test has become a cornerstone of DUI enforcement, yet its scientific validity and practical application deserve careful scrutiny. While law enforcement presents this test as objective evidence of impairment, numerous issues undermine its reliability as a definitive indicator of intoxication.

Read More