Container Top
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


Pets:
It Takes All Kinds

The Heldenfiles:
Tuesday Notebook

Patrick McManamon:
An interesting thought from a reader

Akron Zips:
Akron vs. Mount Union — Liveblog

Tribe Matters:
Indians announce spring dates

Cleveland Browns:
Mangini doesn't name a quarterback

Kent State Sports:
Flashes interested in another Cincinnati player

Cleveland Cavaliers:
Shaq: It’s All About Winning Championships

Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes Roll 100-60 / Season Outlook

Varsity Letters:
Report: Walsh baseball player commits

All Da King's Men:
More On The Fort Hood Jihadist

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Simply Incapable of Telling The Truth

Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (63) Commonwealth Fund Report on Primary Care

See Jane Style:
Muffle Your Muffler

Car Chase:
Clock Tender- Extending the Life of Collector Car Clocks

Let's Talk Real Estate:
Rumors: Akron Starbucks Closing

Ohio Travels with Betty:
Jack is looking for a trip to Southern Ohio the week of November 16.

Sound Check:
Aeromsith looking for new singer as Steven Tyler contemplates solo career

HRLite House:
Personal Rant – Why People Do Not Live in Northeast Ohio

Akron Gamer:
Video: 'Modern Warfare 2' hits the streets

Critics say Ohio DUI bill violates Constitution

By Stephen Majors
Associated Press writer

COLUMBUS: Ohio is about to give police more leeway than most states to force a blood or urine test on certain people suspected of drunken driving.

The bill, which Gov. Ted Strickland is expected to sign later this week, would apply to people who had been convicted at least twice of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Under current law, authorities must get a warrant from a judge to test blood or urine for alcohol or drugs on people who don't initially give their consent. A few other states require mandatory blood testing but only when there has been a fatal crash or great bodily harm and police have probable cause that a driver is intoxicated.

''Driving in Ohio is a right not a privilege,'' said state Sen. Timothy Grendell, the Chesterland Republican who sponsored the bill. ''We can precondition that right on any condition we want that helps keep the other drivers on the road safe.''

Civil liberties advocates say the bill is unconstitutional, and they expect to challenge the law once it is enforced.

Requiring a warrant is the way that the judicial system can play its role in checking the power of the state, said Jeffrey Gamso, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.

''If it were really hard to get a warrant it would be one thing, but they can get a warrant in a hurry,'' he said. ''There's always a judge on duty.''

Grendell said a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision provides a solid legal foundation for his bill. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that authorities could compel a driver whom they had suspected of drunken driving to give a blood sample.

COLUMBUS: Ohio is about to give police more leeway than most states to force a blood or urine test on certain people suspected of drunken driving.

The bill, which Gov. Ted Strickland is expected to sign later this week, would apply to people who had been convicted at least twice of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Under current law, authorities must get a warrant from a judge to test blood or urine for alcohol or drugs on people who don't initially give their consent. A few other states require mandatory blood testing but only when there has been a fatal crash or great bodily harm and police have probable cause that a driver is intoxicated.

''Driving in Ohio is a right not a privilege,'' said state Sen. Timothy Grendell, the Chesterland Republican who sponsored the bill. ''We can precondition that right on any condition we want that helps keep the other drivers on the road safe.''

Civil liberties advocates say the bill is unconstitutional, and they expect to challenge the law once it is enforced.

Requiring a warrant is the way that the judicial system can play its role in checking the power of the state, said Jeffrey Gamso, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.

''If it were really hard to get a warrant it would be one thing, but they can get a warrant in a hurry,'' he said. ''There's always a judge on duty.''

Grendell said a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision provides a solid legal foundation for his bill. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that authorities could compel a driver whom they had suspected of drunken driving to give a blood sample.



Story tools

Email  Email   Print  Print   Save  Save   Reprint  Reprint   Popular  Most Popular   Reprint  Subscribe

Share this story

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
















Most Commented Stories