OVI / DUI ‘Impaired’ Defenses In Ohio

Defending Against Charges Of DUI / OVI ‘Impaired’ In Ohio
The charge of DUI / OVI ‘Impaired’ requires the prosecution to prove the driver was ‘under the influence’ while operating the vehicle. Proving that charge relies heavily on observations of witnesses, primarily police officers. The proof comes from the cumulative effect of the individual pieces of evidence, like ingredients in a recipe (e.g., unsafe driving, slurred speech, poor performance on sobriety tests, etc.). The defenses are designed to show there are incorrect or missing ingredients. Not every case involves every defense: we use only the defenses applicable to the particular case.

At the Dominy Law Firm in Columbus, Ohio, our DUI / OVI lawyers created a summary of The Top 100 Ohio DUI / OVI Defenses ©. That list does not contain every possible defense; just the top 100. From those 100 defenses, 50 are related to the charge of DUI / OVI ‘Per Se’, and 50 are related to the charge of DUI / OVI ‘Impaired’. The top 50 defenses related to the charge of DUI / OVI ‘Impaired’ are listed below. Also below is a bonus list of the top 10 defenses to the Administrative License Suspension.

Top 50 Defenses To DUI / OVI ‘Impaired’ In Ohio

1. Driving: ‘clues’ of impaired driving not present while vehicle is in motion
2. Driving: ‘clues’ observed by officer are unrelated to driving under the influence
3. Driving: no proof of ‘operation’ of the vehicle
4. Driving: no problems with stopping sequence
5. Traffic stop not justified: no traffic violation committed
6. Traffic stop not justified: insufficient informant tip
7. Traffic stop not justified: unreasonable mistake of fact/law by officer
8. Accident: not at fault, poor accident investigation
9. Accident: alcohol or drugs consumed after accident
10. Sobriety checkpoint unlawful
11. Interaction with officer: no odor of alcohol
12. Interaction with officer: no slurred speech
13. Interaction with officer: no glassy/bloodshot eyes
14. Interaction with officer: no admission of consuming alcohol or drugs
15. Interaction with officer: no problem with mental faculties
16. Interaction with officer: no problem with physical coordination
17. Interaction with officer: no problem with divided attention
18. No evidence of alcohol or drugs/drug paraphernalia in vehicle
19. Detention for DUI/OVI investigation not justified
20. Field sobriety tests: not admissible due to lack of compliance with training manual
21. Field sobriety tests: not reliable due to faulty administration
22. Field sobriety tests: good performance from common sense despite observation of technical ‘clues’
23. Field sobriety tests: unrelated to impaired driving ability
24. Field sobriety tests: medical condition affected ability to perform tests
25. Field sobriety tests: non-standardized tests have no correlation with intoxication
26. Field sobriety tests: non-standardized tests inadmissible under rules of evidence
27. Drug recognition evaluations: 12-steps not properly implemented
28. Drug recognition evaluations: failure to comply with certification requirement
29. Drug recognition evaluations: components unrelated to driving impairment
30. No problems with balance
31. No problems with coordination
32. No problems following instructions
33. Arrest unlawful: officer did not have probable cause to believe driver was under the influence
34. Arrest unlawful: officer outside jurisdiction
35. Statements made to officer inadmissible due to lack of Miranda warnings
36. Statements made to officer inaccurately reported or taken out of context
37. Fatigue has symptoms which can be mistaken for intoxication
38. Medical conditions may have symptoms which can be mistaken for intoxication
39. Ambien use negates the actus reus requirement; the act of driving is involuntary
40. Confirmation bias: officer jumped to conclusion and looked for evidence to confirm conclusion
41. Officer discounted evidence inconsistent with intoxication
42. Officer under pressure to make OVI arrests
43. Refusal of chemical test: no advice or improper advice given regarding consequences of refusing test
44. Refusal of chemical test: no notification of right to appeal or independent chemical test
45. Refusal of chemical test: officer’s claim of refusal inaccurate
46. Refusal of chemical test: inability to take test is not a refusal
47. Refusal of chemical test: enhancement of penalty improper because prior OVI convictions ‘invalid’
    
48. Discovery: evidence from prosecutor not disclosed to defense attorney
49. Discovery: evidence destroyed after requested by defense
50. Speedy trial rights violated

Bonus: Top 10 Defenses To The Administrative License Suspension

1. Officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe driver was under the influence
2. Officer did not properly advise driver of consequences for taking or refusing a chemical test
3. Driver did not refuse a chemical test or test result was not ‘over the limit’
4. Officer did not have a witness while reading the ALS form
5. Officer did not notify driver of the rights to appeal and independent chemical test
6. Officer completed the ALS report incorrectly
7. Officer did not give a complete ALS report to the driver
8. Officer did not have the ALS report sworn properly
9. Officer did not send the report to the BMV or the court within 48 hours
10. Driver’s initial appearance in court not held within five business days

Representation For DUI / OVI ‘Impaired’

The Dominy Law Firm represents clients charged with DUI / OVI in Columbus and Central Ohio who intend to contest the case. If you would like to discuss representation for your case, you can schedule a free phone consultation by submitting a CONTACT FORM or by calling 614-717-1177.

OVI / DUI ‘Per Se’ Defenses In Ohio

OVI / DUI Defenses