Container Top
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens

The Heldenfiles:
Friday Night Notebook

Patrick McManamon:
For your Saturday entertainment …

Akron Zips:
Hitchens leads Zips in second-half comeback

Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster

Cleveland Browns:
Holmgren expresses interest in Browns position

Kent State Sports:
Kent State blown out in second half, loses to Temple 47-13

Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs vs. Philadelphia 76ers

Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad

Varsity Letters:
Four area football teams play tonight

All Da King's Men:
Headed For Disaster

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Will Health Care Reform Pass?

Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (68) Democrats Secure 60 Votes for Cloture

See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic

Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED

Let's Talk Real Estate:
Silverdome Potentially SOLD!

Ohio Travels with Betty:
George is looking for a Thanksgiving buffet in Akron.

Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall

HRLite House:
Colloquium at University of Akron

Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go

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