Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Family found dead in Ohio home
Man gets 3 years in prison for having sex with horse
Robbers order bar patrons to empty pockets
Sex-toy study at Duke University raises some eyebrows
Akron man turns himself in after authorities turn up heat
Man appears alive at own funeral
Take comfort in knowing Browns could be bigger losers
Boy tells 911 operator he shot father in anger
Get ready for detour, delays on Route 8
Akron police follow blood trail to murder suspect
Another wacky, crazy Browns week
Blogs:
Pets:
Not 101 Dalmations…but close!
The Heldenfiles:
Friday Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
An agent's tale
Akron Zips:
No. 1 UA soccer remains perfect, Zips football defeats rival Flashes
Tribe Matters:
Tribe makes roster moves
Cleveland Browns:
Lewis doesn't like boycott
Kent State Sports:
Kent State falls to Akron, 20-28
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Knicks
Buckeye Blogging:
Weekly ‘B’ Deck Report – New Mexico St.
Varsity Letters:
Wrestling, bowling teams prepare for season
All Da King's Men:
Bigger And Better Boondoggles
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Dems Message To Women: Don't Enjoy The Sex
Akron Law Café:
NEW U.S. Supreme Court Database
See Jane Style:
Muffle Your Muffler
Car Chase:
Perfect Weather for an Autumn Drive
Let's Talk Real Estate:
RUMORS: Downtown Restaurant Explosion
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Jack is looking for a trip to Southern Ohio the week of November 16.
Sound Check:
The Black Keys to perform benefit concert at Musica on November 27
HRLite House:
Personal Rant – Why People Do Not Live in Northeast Ohio
Akron Gamer:
New 'Call of Duty' could set entertainment record
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
