Courts Begin to Adopt Findings in State v. Hoover

Courts are beginning to adopt the findings in State v. Hoover, 2009 Ohio 4993, permitting lower courts to enhance a person’s sentence for refusing to submit to a chemical test in OVI prosecutions.

Historically, it was thought that a defendant had a constitutional right to refuse to submit to a chemical test. While the refusal could result in an administrative suspension under Ohio’s Implied consent Law, O.R.C. 4511.191, it was thought that it was a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to enhance a sentence due to the defendant refusal.

The Third District Appellate Court (Union County, Ohio) had reiterated this long established thinking in rejecting a lower court’s enhancement of a defendant’s sentence due to the defendant’s refusal to submit to a test. But the Ohio Supreme Court rejected this long held interpretation and overruled the appellate court’s opinion. In its opinion the supreme court stated:

"It is crucial to note that the refusal to consent to testing is not, itself, a criminal offense. The activity prohibited under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) is operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A person's refusal to take a chemical test is simply an additional element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt along with the person's previous DUI conviction to distinguish the offense from a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).”

"Hoover contends, however, that he has a constitutional right to revoke his implied consent and that being forced by threat of punishment to submit to a chemical test violates his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution, which provide that persons, houses, and effects are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. However, Hoover has no constitutional right to refuse to take a reasonably reliable chemical test for intoxication...Asking a driver to comply with conduct he has no right to refuse and thereafter enhancing a later sentence upon conviction does not violate the constitution.”

In rejecting an appeal from the Coshocton Municipal Court, The Fifth Appellate District adopted the findings in State v. Hoover. It appears that court, prosecutors and police have an additional hammer to hold over the head of a detainee to demand that they submit to a chemical test.

It would be wise that any advocate advising those arrested for OVI rethink their unwavering advise to refuse a test. There may be valid reasons to do so, BUT the possibility of additional sanctions should be part of the decision making process.

Severe Consequences Result from Violating an OVI Suspension

If you’ve continued to read this blog, its is clear that one’s driving privileges will be suspended for a period of time as a result of an OVI conviction. Minimum suspensions begin at 6 months for first offenders to two years for multiple offenses. Limited driving privileges can be obtained by motion after a period of suspension. The court has discretion in determining those privileges which normally are for employment, educational, medical or alcohol interdiction programs. The driving privileges are set forth in a court order that the defendant must carry with them while driving. In the event the driver is stopped a reading of the order by the police officer will be determinative of whether the defendant has violated the terms of their restrictive driving privileges.

It is important that anyone given privileges during the period of their suspension understand the severe penalties for their violation of those limited driving rights. The additional penalties imposed for driving under an OVI suspension are as follows:

First Time in 6 Years

3-180 days in jail or 30-180 days of house arrest

with electronic monitoring

$250-$1000 fine

Mandatory 30 day immobilzation

Restricted Plates

Second in 6 Years

10 days to 1 Year in jail or 90 days - 1 year of house arrest

with electronic monitoring

$500-$2500 fine

Mandatory 60 day immobilization

Restricted Plates

Third of More Times in 6 years

30 days to 1 year jail (no house arrest with

electronic monitoring)

$500-$2500 fine

Automobile is forfeited

As one can see from the chart, if you are caught in violation of the restrictions imposed by the court you can face mandatory jail, large fines and immobilization or forfeiture of your automobile. Therefore, it is vitally important that your attorney be advised of any circumstance that should be reflected in any court order. Among these are child custody issues, unusual work schedules, important family medical issues, attendance at AA or alcohol or drug interdiction programs, or religious requirements. These must be reflected in any order as many courts will strictly construe the restrictions set forth in the court order.

OVI Update Seminar Scheduled for November 20, 2009

The Ohio State Bar Association’s annual OVI update seminar is scheduled for November 20, 2009. Historically this seminar is the most comprehensive seminar offered dealing with major issues in the area of OVI. Topics discussed during the seminar deal with pertinent and relevant issues facing the OVI practioner today. Among the topics to be presented are:

Case Law and Legislative Updates

Administrative License Suspension Appeals

Justification to Detain and Driver for an OVI Stop

Effect of OVI on Commercial Drivers’ Licenses

Felony OVI and Prior Convictions

Use of Field Sobriety Tests at Trial

Ohio Administrative Code and Department of Health Requirements Relating to Blood and Urine Draws

The Impact of Destroyed Videos

Motions to Suppress

These topics are being presented by some of the most preeminent OVI practioners in the State of Ohio and should not be missed by any member of the bar - defense counsel, prosecutors or judiciary. 6.75 CLE hours is granted for all those attending requiring continuing education hours by The Ohio Supreme Court.

The seminar is being presented live in Columbus and simulcast to locations in Akron, Cleveland, Dayton, Fairfield, Steubenville, Toledo and Youngstown The course is also offered on DVD and Webcast (offer date TBA).

Registration information can be found at the Ohio Bar Association Web Site. In the keyword search block, enter the term "OVI" and click on "search." Click on the location where you will be attending the seminar and comprehensive information will be provided.

The Argument for “Particularity”

Suppression and dismissal motions are a vital resource for any defendant fighting a charge of OVI in Ohio. This blog has written several articles referring to various motions filed by counsel in defense of an OVI charge. Theses discussion, for the most part, were substantive in nature.

A recent Ohio court of appeals case addresses the rules governing how a motion is presented. It typifies the long held rule that motions can not be generic. They must be written with particularity. The case, In re Minnick, 2009 Ohio 5274, touches on a subject very relevant to motion practice in Ohio- the issue of “particularity.” In this case, the defendant was stopped and eventually charge for OVI. The defense counsel filed a motion to suppress, among other issues, the results of the breathalyzer.

In his motion the defendant stated, “...[he is moving] for a suppression of the evidence obtained by the Van Wert County Sheriff's Department from the warrantless seizure of the Defendant[.]" The motion then proceeds to list five particular items of evidence that the defendant wanted to be suppressed, including the results of the breathalyzer. The defendant also attached a memorandum in support of his motion to suppress. The bulk of this motion discussed the law surrounding the suppression of evidence flowing from an illegal stop, detention, and/or arrest. The motion also alleged that the field sobriety tests were not done in strict compliance with the applicable standards and were inadmissible. In conclusion, the defendant’s motion read: "Based upon the foregoing the Defendant asserts that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the administration of the field sobriety tests, the portable breath test and the BAC Datamaster test."

The lower court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the breathalyzer. The defendant appealed.

In analyzing the merits of the case, the Third Appellate District Court (Van Wert County) centered its attention on the generic nature of the pleading itself. The court quoted Criminal Rule 47 that stated the rule required, “[a] motion, other than one made during trial or hearing, shall be in writing unless the court permits it to be made orally. It shall state with particularity the grounds upon which it is made and shall set forth the relief or order sought." In keeping with this rule, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that "the accused must state the motion's legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and the court on notice of the issues to be decided." State v. Shindler (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 54, 1994 Ohio 452, 636 N.E.2d 319.

The court went on to say, “While courts vary in their determinations as to what constitutes "sufficient particularity," at a minimum, an accused is required to identify some section of the Ohio Administrative Code that is implicated and/or make some sort of assertion that the State failed to follow the proper standards in administering the breath test.”

In sustaining the lower court’s decision, the appellate court concluded that, “The motion contained no allegation that the State violated any one of these requirements nor was there any citation to a particular OAC section that was alleged to have been violated. Moreover, [the defendant] never requested in his motion that the results of the BAC Datamaster be suppressed because of non-compliance with the OAC. Rather, [the defendant] simply made a blanket statement of what the law required the State to prove in order to admit the results in evidence and then requested that the BAC Datamaster results be suppressed because there was not sufficient evidence to warrant [the arresting officer] to administer this test.” In summary, the appellate court opined that the defendant’s motion failed to contain sufficient particularity and, for that reason, the lower court was correct in suppressing the motion.

This appellate court sustained the long held rule that generic motions will not be tolerated. Therefore, in preparing any motion to suppress, the pleading should contain, at minimum:

1. A statement of what the defendant is attempting to suppress,

2. A cite as to the particular administrative code section or what legal right was violated, and

3. A factual summary of the actions of the arresting officer or entity that violated that OAC section or right.

Can Your Sentence be Enhanced if You Refuse to Take A Chemical Test?

Legal experts have debated for years the issue of restricted freedoms due to actions that might not be criminal by definition. The major debate centers around sentence enhancement due to one’s refusal to submit to chemical testing, i.e. blood draws, DNA tests, etc. Even the US Supreme Court has raised the ire of many legal scholars because of its differing opinions relating to many of these freedoms.

If you read this blog, a recent article discussed one appellate court’s opinion regarding the criminalization of a defendant’s right to refuse to submit to a chemical test. While most legal scholars side on a defendant’s right to refuse without the stigma of an enhanced sentence, the Fifth Appellate Court in State of Ohio v. Adam, sustained the lower court’s right to enhance the defendant’s sentence for his refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Apparently, the Ohio Supreme Court, in its recent decision in State v. Hoover, 2009 Ohio 4993, has put the issue to rest (at least in Ohio) for multiple offenders. In that case, the defendant refused the breathalyzer and his sentence was doubled due to his violation of O.R.C. 4511.19(A)(2). That statute permits the enhancement of an OVI sentence if the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test and has a prior conviction in the last 20 years.

The defendant argued that the statute violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights which protects him from illegal searches and seizures and violations of his due process rights. The court disagreed stating that the right to drive in Ohio is not an inherent constitutional right. It is a privilege that does not have the same constitutional safeguards.

The court cited the cases of Westerville v.Cunningham, 15 Ohio St. 2d 121 and Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 that stated section 4511.191 of the Ohio Revised Code, does not violate the search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment, nor the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The court also cited State v. Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d 425 which declared that the administrative license suspension provisions of the 4511.19 was not a violation of the defendant’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights to further rationalize its findings.

In conclusion, the court declared the enhancement provision for refusing to submit to a chemical test is constitutional and allows a court to enhance a defendant’s sentence if the following are proven beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a DUI conviction within 20 years of the current violation, (2) operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and (3) a refusal to submit to a chemical test while under arrest for the current DUI.

You will note the court did not address the issue of court’s right to enhance the sentence of a first time offender for their refusal to submit to a chemical test. This is still under debate as discussed in a prior blog.