News, updates, resources, stories, and help from an Ohio attorney through a Blog.
The Fifth District held that an officer's mistaken belief that stopping prior to a stop sign was a violation was an objectively reasonable belief, and therefore the resulting traffic stop was based on sufficient reasonable suspicion.
Read MoreTraffic stop of motorcycles for failure to give turn signals OK, even if officers cannot see whether hand signals were given? Fifth District says yes, at least when the defendant reports the hand signals were given by a passenger.
Read MoreOhio Supreme Court affirms the OVI Habitual Offender Specification found in the R.C. 2941.1413.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2016/2016-Ohio-1092.pdf
March 22, 2016
Klembus was sentenced to one year for a Fourth Degree Felony OVI and one year for the repeat-OVI specification, to be served consecutively. He appealed, and the Eighth District agreed, holding that the repeat OVI offender specification violated equal protection because OVI penalty and the specification require identical proof yet impose different penalties. Subsequently, the First, Second, Third, Eleventh, and Twelfth Districts rejected the Eighth District opinion.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Eighth District, and in upholding the specification reasoned, "The possibility of longer prison sentences for those who continue to violate Ohio's OVI statute is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in punishing offenders and protecting the public from the dangers of impaired driving."
If you are interested in criminal defense services, or have been charged with an OVI, consider reviewing our DUI Defense Services at http://SivinskiLegal.com
The First District holds that a woman, placed in a police car, and denied use of her cellphone, is not under arrest until the police officer intends to put her under arrest.
Read MoreThe 9th District finds a tow truck driver to be a known citizen informant whose tip is sufficiently reliable to justify a traffic stop.
Read MoreThe Twelfth District holds that collateral attacks of prior convictions during felony OVI cases are limited to violations of the right to counsel.
Read MoreThe 9th District avoids an evaluation of the constitutionality of the OVI repeat offender specification by holding the trial court erred in granting motions to dismiss, before the defendants were found guilty of or sentenced to the specification.
Read MoreThe First District joins the Second, Third, Eleventh, and Twelfth Districts in rejecting an Eighth District opinion finding the repeat OVI offender specification unconstitutional.
Read MoreThe Sixth District departs from prior holdings, bringing itself in line with other appellate courts, by holding that when a trial court does not follow R.C. 2937.07 by failing to obtain an explanation of the circumstances of an offense when accepting a no contest plea, the defendant should be acquitted rather than having the case simply remanded.
Read MoreThe 11th District holds that the OVI repeat offender specification is Constitutional and the only grounds to challenge prior convictions must be based on a lack of counsel, while the 12th District holds that the speedy trial clock for subsequent OVI charges based on chemical tests does not begin to run at the time of the original OVI charge.
Read MoreThe Eighth District seems to hold that an officer may initiate a traffic stop whenever a vehicle switches lanes of traffic, regardless of whether the officer has reason to believe they failed to ascertain whether it was safe to do so.
Read MoreThe Eight District holds that R.C. 4510.54 and 4510.021 grant trial courts authority to terminate or modify license suspensions or grant occupational driving privileges, even if convicted of R.C. 2903.06 and 2903.08, with DUI specifications
Read MoreThe Fifth District rejects an argument that an OVI conviction should be overturned for assertions that impairment could be explained by childhood brain injury, a severe back injury, prostate cancer, the airbag went off in defendant's face, that flashing lights impaired ability to complete HGN, and Klonopin was taken after the accident.
Read MoreThe Fourth District holds that admission of a defendant's refusal to take a chemical test at trial does not violate a defendant's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, imposing an administrative license suspension and criminal penalties does not violate Double Jeopardy protections, and disagrees with the 11th District by concluding that courts need not accept defendants' offers to stipulate to prior OVI convictions.
Read MoreI am an attorney with Sivinski Law Offices, providing legal representation for labor and employment issues, criminal defense, DUI defense, and family law. I am admitted to practice in the State of Ohio, the United States District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
I am also a father ofthree lively children, a member of St. Peter's Catholic church in Huron, and we enjoy all opportunities to get outdoors to cycle, hike, fish, play catch with our redbone coonhound Duke, barbecue, and to explore my enjoyment of photography.
by Brian J. Smith, Esq
The Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd.
20545 Center Ridge Road, Suite 215, Rocky River, Ohio 44116
800-641-1970
https://www.BrianSmithLaw.com
Criminal Defense - DUI Defense - Unemployment Appeals - Union Labor Law
Unemployment Appeals and Union Labor Law service areas include the State of Ohio.
Criminal and OVI services areas include: Cuyahoga, Erie, Huron, Ottawa, Lorain, Lake, Medina, Sandusky and Geauga Counties
Disclaimer / Privacy Policy
© Brian J. Smith, all rights reserved.
