News, updates, resources, stories, and help from an Ohio attorney through a Blog.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that, despite the administrative code requiring refrigeration of urine and blood samples, the State substantially complies if the samples are unrefrigerated for as long as five hours, while providing clarification for the burden shifting tests for substantial compliance with OVI testing.
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 dentures are not foreign objects and that the accuracy of breath tests given to suspects with dentures in their mouth is a matter of weight, not admissibility, of the test results.
Read MoreIn two cases, the Eleventh District holds that a motion to dismiss based on speedy trial revokes any prior speedy trial waivers; and a waiver of counsel at arraignment is insufficient to waive counsel at trial.
Read MoreThe Sixth District holds that attacks to prior OVI convictions based on being uncounseled must be supported with some evidence, even if an affidavit, in the present case; and the Eleventh District holds that probable cause exists when a driver leaves the scene of an accident, gets his vehicle stuck in the mud, has beer cans in his truck, glassy, sleepy eyes, an odor of alcohol, seems confused, and refuses sobriety tests.
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 MoreThe Second District joins the Third, Eleventh, and Twelfth Districts in rejecting an equal protection challenge to the OVI Repeat Offender Specification statute, while the Eighth District's opinion finding an equal protection challenge is awaiting review with the Ohio Supreme Court.
Read MoreThe Third District holds that a criminal court may not modify a final judgment, including a sentence, nunc pro tunc except when the original sentence was void or it contains a clerical error.
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.
