Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Suitcase causes bomb scare at Akron bus terminal
Akron City Council OKs higher speed on I-77
Chapel Hill isn't rolling right along
Motorcyclist killed, wife injured in Stark County crash
New eateries expand menu of options
Man says he was punched, robbed by 3 people in parking lot
Patrick McManamon: Here's what the Browns should try the rest of the season
Louisville athlete commits to play for Boston College
Family found dead in Ohio home
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
No warrant to be needed to make repeat offenders in Ohio take tests
By Ed Meyer
Beacon Journal staff writer
Published on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2008
Police in Ohio soon will have more authority to force suspected drunken drivers with multiple DUI convictions to take blood and urine tests.
The bill, expected to be signed into law later this week by Gov. Ted Strickland, would affect drivers with at least two convictions for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The law to take effect in late September will give Ohio police more leeway than most states.
Authorities must now obtain a warrant from a judge to test for alcohol or drugs on drivers who do not initially give their consent.
A few other states require mandatory blood testing, according to statistics compiled by the Associated Press, but only when there has been a fatal crash, a crash with life-threatening injuries, or when police have probable cause that a driver is intoxicated.
Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh, who worked extensively on the bill with its sponsor, state Sen. Timothy Grendell, R-Chesterland, said she believes it will ''significantly help deter repeat offenders from continuing to drive drunk on our roadways.''
Historically, Walsh said, drivers who did not consent to a Breathalyzer test received a one-year license suspension as part of the punishment.
''I do believe that, early on, that was a sufficient penalty . . . because nobody wanted to lose their license for a year,'' Walsh said. ''But as all the years have gone by and people have received more and more convictions as a repeat offender, this penalty became meaningless, so there was no incentive to take the test.''
In the past three years in Summit County, for example, Walsh said her office prosecuted 17 drivers involved in fatal crashes and more than 100 with five or more DUI convictions.
Of those, about 90 percent did not consent to take the Breathalyzer test, Walsh said.
''Our position on that is they are withholding key evidence of a crime, and it is not unconstitutional to do a mandatory test or a mandatory blood draw,'' Walsh said.
Grendell, speaking in Columbus, said that a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision provided a solid legal basis for the legislation.
In its 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that authorities did not need a warrant to compel a driver suspected of drunken driving to give a blood sample.
Civil liberties advocates, however, said the new measure is unconstitutional and that they expect legal challenges to it once it is enforced.
Jeffrey Gamso, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said that requiring a warrant is the proper way for the judicial system to work.
''If it were really hard to get a warrant, it would be one thing,'' Gamso said. ''But they can get a warrant in a hurry. There's always a judge on duty.''
Prominent defense lawyer Robert J. Fitrakis of Columbus likened the new measure to ''Gitmo for Ohio,'' referring to the short name for Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where the U.S. has held alleged terrorists.
Fitrakis said the bill is ''a reflection of what's going on in our nation. I would just pray we can restore some balance here and realize that we already have protections in place. I mean, what about probable cause?
''For God's sake, police officers are well trained in Ohio. We have laws in place, and they already know when somebody needs a blood test or a Breathalyzer test,'' Fitrakis said.
''We have a whole system of checks and balances,'' he said. ''We don't need an executive to take away the power of the courts.''
Walsh disputed those contentions. She pointed to the numbers for multiple drunken driving convictions in Ohio.
''We are seeing way too many repeat offenders on the road,'' Walsh said.
Through 2006, she said, statistics compiled by the state's Department of Highway Safety showed that 38,156 drivers had five or more DUI convictions.
Ed Meyer can be reached at 330-996-3784 or emeyer@thebeaconjournal.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Police in Ohio soon will have more authority to force suspected drunken drivers with multiple DUI convictions to take blood and urine tests.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
Posted 03:00 AM, 11/14/2008
The United States supreme court ruled wednesday that driving under the influence is not equivalent to violent felonies. That means that convictions for DUI do not warrant enhanced prison sentences during the penalty phase of criminal cases. Whereas the justices agreed that drunk driving can result in bodily harm and death, they found the offense to be different from crimes with purposeful action, such as murder or rape.
---------------------------------------------
nancypricella
DUI
Posted 03:02 AM, 11/14/2008
The United States supreme court ruled wednesday that driving under the influence is not equivalent to violent felonies. That means that convictions for DUI do not warrant enhanced prison sentences during the penalty phase of criminal cases. Whereas the justices agreed that drunk driving can result in bodily harm and death, they found the offense to be different from crimes with purposeful action, such as murder or rape.
-----------------------------------
nancypricella
DUI
