Events Calendar
In This Section
Free-throw line points toward win
Zips get run over in second half
Zips get gobbled up by Wolfpack 66-45
Browns' Rogers just happy to play
Actor Bernsen enjoying ride of derby movie project
Federal court seeks info in Ohio lethal injection case
Diocese: Pedophile priests should get benefits
Ohio attorney general sues credit agencies for public pensions
Most Read Stories
NFL star Chris Spielman's wife loses cancer battle
Man found dead in North Akron home is identified
Dad accused of forcing son into field, killing him
Coventry man killed in crash at I-77 ramp
Poor machine maintenance blamed for fire at Akron business
College student mistaken for deer, shot to death
Man allegedly paid teens to spit in his face
Indians add 7 players to 40-man roster
Body with gunshot wounds found in Canton Township creek
Man charged with raping, killing N.C. girl, 5
Cleveland balks at new LeBron James mural
Union president says Akron saved only $21,000 with firefighter layoffs
Investigators say nude video of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews shot in Ohio
Blogs:
Pets:
Sick Pets Get High-tech Health Care
The Heldenfiles:
Friday Night Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
The proposed new LeBron mural doesn't do it for me
Akron Zips:
Two blowouts, one night
Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster
Cleveland Browns:
Hey, somebody's gotta stick up for the Browns
Kent State Sports:
Singletary update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Indiana Pacers – Here’s to LBJ and Free Throws
Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad
Varsity Letters:
Bowling season starts today
All Da King's Men:
Attention Haters, Palin And Hannity Together
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Muslim McCarthyism & Death Prayers
Akron Law Café:
Federal Judge Declares DOMA Unconstitutional
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:
Norma asks if Barkitecture is still at Stan Hywet.
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
By Associated Press
POSTED: 06:18 p.m. EDT, Sep 30, 2008
COLUMBUS: Civil liberties advocates brand as unconstitutional a new Ohio law that gives police more leeway than most states to force a blood or urine test on certain drunken driving suspects.
Under the law that took effect Tuesday, authorities in Ohio can force drivers who have two or more drunken driving convictions to submit to such tests without their consent.
The state previously required authorities to get a warrant from a judge to test blood or urine for alcohol or drugs from people who don't initially give their consent.
''We do believe this law is unconstitutional, especially the part that basically says police don't have to have a warrant,'' said Jeffrey Gamso, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. ''That's just wrong and a complete misunderstanding of what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.''
State Sen. Timothy Grendell, the Chesterland Republican who sponsored the legislation, said that a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in 1966 supports the law. He said the court ruled that authorities could compel a driver suspected of drunken driving to give a blood sample.
Gamso argues that the court said in that case that it would allow taking of blood from a driver when police had probable cause and authorities could not get a warrant in time to test the blood before signs of alcohol would have disappeared.
''This law is saying that it's a general rule not to have to get a warrant and that is not what the court said,'' Gamso said. ''Warrants are there to protect us from overreaching by the police.''
Grendell argued Tuesday that there is nothing unconstitutional about the law and said the 1966 case did not involve an inability to get a warrant.
''It said that you don't need to jump through hoops to protect a repeat criminal,'' Grendell said. ''This particular provision is important because it's going to be targeting those repeat drunken drivers who have become educated and think they can scam the system by refusing to be tested.''
One prosecutor said the law is a powerful change.
''You don't come up on a murder scene and have a man standing there with a smoking gun and allow him to say, 'No, I refuse to hand you the best evidence you've got,''' said Delaware Prosecutor David Yost. ''So, why should suspected drunk drivers be allowed to keep our evidence from authorities?''
But Cincinnati attorney Chuck Strain, who specializes in DUI law, said the law is too invasive and violates drivers' rights.
''It doesn't make me proud that my government is doing that,'' Strain said.
The law applies to people convicted of intoxicated driving twice in six years or five times in 20 years. Among other provisions, it requires an online database to track offenders with drunken-driving and related convictions and increases penalties for repeat drunken driving offenses.
Grendell said he is comfortable, based on the Supreme Court precedent, that any effort to argue that a warrant is required will fail in the court system.
While the ACLU has no immediate plans to challenge the law, Gamso said he would not rule out the possibility.
''I believe the first challenge will come from a criminal defense attorney representing someone forced to submit to the testing,'' he said.
COLUMBUS: Civil liberties advocates brand as unconstitutional a new Ohio law that gives police more leeway than most states to force a blood or urine test on certain drunken driving suspects.
Under the law that took effect Tuesday, authorities in Ohio can force drivers who have two or more drunken driving convictions to submit to such tests without their consent.
The state previously required authorities to get a warrant from a judge to test blood or urine for alcohol or drugs from people who don't initially give their consent.
''We do believe this law is unconstitutional, especially the part that basically says police don't have to have a warrant,'' said Jeffrey Gamso, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. ''That's just wrong and a complete misunderstanding of what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.''
State Sen. Timothy Grendell, the Chesterland Republican who sponsored the legislation, said that a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in 1966 supports the law. He said the court ruled that authorities could compel a driver suspected of drunken driving to give a blood sample.
Gamso argues that the court said in that case that it would allow taking of blood from a driver when police had probable cause and authorities could not get a warrant in time to test the blood before signs of alcohol would have disappeared.
''This law is saying that it's a general rule not to have to get a warrant and that is not what the court said,'' Gamso said. ''Warrants are there to protect us from overreaching by the police.''
Grendell argued Tuesday that there is nothing unconstitutional about the law and said the 1966 case did not involve an inability to get a warrant.
''It said that you don't need to jump through hoops to protect a repeat criminal,'' Grendell said. ''This particular provision is important because it's going to be targeting those repeat drunken drivers who have become educated and think they can scam the system by refusing to be tested.''
One prosecutor said the law is a powerful change.
''You don't come up on a murder scene and have a man standing there with a smoking gun and allow him to say, 'No, I refuse to hand you the best evidence you've got,''' said Delaware Prosecutor David Yost. ''So, why should suspected drunk drivers be allowed to keep our evidence from authorities?''
But Cincinnati attorney Chuck Strain, who specializes in DUI law, said the law is too invasive and violates drivers' rights.
''It doesn't make me proud that my government is doing that,'' Strain said.
The law applies to people convicted of intoxicated driving twice in six years or five times in 20 years. Among other provisions, it requires an online database to track offenders with drunken-driving and related convictions and increases penalties for repeat drunken driving offenses.
Grendell said he is comfortable, based on the Supreme Court precedent, that any effort to argue that a warrant is required will fail in the court system.
While the ACLU has no immediate plans to challenge the law, Gamso said he would not rule out the possibility.
''I believe the first challenge will come from a criminal defense attorney representing someone forced to submit to the testing,'' he said.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
south of Akron, NO
Posted 06:26 PM, 09/30/2008
ACLU is a bunch of idiots, peabrains, jerks, numbskulls, ahole, air wasters!
Akron, OH
Posted 06:34 PM, 09/30/2008
Jimbo is white, conservative, angry, and bitter.
Posted 06:39 PM, 09/30/2008
ACLU, America's Taliban, best friends of child molestors and criminals. What ever they are against must be good for my family.
Perrysburg, OH
Posted 06:47 PM, 09/30/2008
Yea, Mike, throwing away the Constitution would be great for your family. The ACLU is supporting your right to be an idiot.
Posted 06:47 PM, 09/30/2008
The ACLU thinks laws on raping children are unconstitutional. Why would DUI laws be any different?
Posted 07:43 PM, 09/30/2008
I just would like to know how laws get passed without taxpayers voting. What happened to by the people for the people? If this would have been on the ballot next month it would not have passed!
Akron, OH
Posted 08:13 PM, 09/30/2008
Chris, laws get passed because you have a representative democracy (I can't believe that I have to teach 4th grade social studies here). You have trustees or city coucil people (depending on where you live) for the local stuff, state reps and senators for the STATE stuff, and US reps and senators for the federal laws. Maybe you are NEW to this country, but that's how laws get passed now.
Anti-Politically Correct & Anti-GOP, OH
Posted 09:19 PM, 09/30/2008
I find it easier just to stay home and invite friends over and entertain friends here. I can drink as much as I want here. I can smoke here. I don't have the bar drama here. I save on gas. I can have a fire in the backyard in my fireplace.
Posted 10:21 PM, 09/30/2008
Wow. Chris is an excellent example of the decline of our educational system.
Posted 10:52 PM, 09/30/2008
Am I the only one who thinks it's questionable at best to allow anyone at all who has been convicted of "2 DUIs or more" to even be driving without being thrown in jail? Driving is a privilege, NOT a right. If you can't drive responsibly, don't drive at all or be thrown in the clink. One time may be a mistake, I'll give you that. 2 or more? Come on! Why argue over something that should not be happening anyway??
Akron, Oh
Posted 11:30 PM, 09/30/2008
Diane, since when is it a privilege to drive anymore? Just because you love to give your money away to the government and the oil companies does not mean everyone else does. LOL I agree with you on the rest of your comment though.
Akron, Oh
Posted 11:43 PM, 09/30/2008
The original realist and cheri, do you have to criticize people and try to embarrass them? All the guy was trying to do was vent his frustration with the government on this subject. I guess you guys are just TOO smart to see that.I bet you will not be that rude to his face.
Akron, Oh
Posted 11:55 PM, 09/30/2008
I don't know Terry, Jimbo sounds like he could be an Obama supporter that is mad at the ACLU for not representing him on his crack possession charges he got arrested for in Denver after the Demoncratic crowning of thier MESSIAH. LOL
