DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Blackmon arrested

If I want to have a drink, I have one at home.

The risk just isn't worth the reward and I wouldn't look good in a bengal uni.

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-re...yzer-132755.php

January 16, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Ohio Imposes Harsh Penalties for Refusing Breathalyzer

Article provided by PROBST LAW OFFICE LLC
Visit us at www.probstlawoffice.com

Ohio law has become increasingly intolerant of drivers charged with driving under the influence, or as it is more commonly referred to, with a DUI or OVI. The law penalizing drivers suspected of DUI who refuse to submit to a blood, urine or breath test is just one example of how harsh the penalties for drinking and driving in the state have become.

Punishments for Refusing to Submit to a Breathalyzer

Ohio is an implied consent state. This means that as a condition of holding a driver's license in Ohio, drivers have given consent to the police to perform a breathalyzer or other chemical test if arrested for a DUI/OVI (R.C. §4511.191).

Taking it a step further, the statute enhances the penalties for a DUI if the driver refuses to submit to the chemical test. Before the law was changed, drivers who refused the breathalyzer only faced administrative penalties, but under the changes, they also now face increased criminal penalties as well.

Under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)(b), a driver who refuses to submit to a breath test and who has one prior conviction for DUI within the past 20 years faces:
-Mandatory minimum of 6 days in jail or 3 days in jail plus a 72 hour driver intervention program (DIP)
-Mandatory 1 year administrative license suspension (ALS) imposed by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The BMV imposed ALS increases for subsequent refusals.
-Minimum 6 month court ordered license suspension (ALS) with maximum 3 year suspension
-Fine between $375-$1075
-Optional drug and alcohol treatment and education program

The amount of mandatory jail time and the length of the license suspension period increase for subsequent offenses. Drivers who who are charged with a second DUI within 6 years, who refuse the breathalyzer test and who have one prior conviction for DUI within the past 20 years face:
-Mandatory minimum of 20 days in jail
-Minimum 1 year ALS with maximum 5 year court imposed driver's license suspension
-Fine between $525-$1625
-Mandatory 90 day immobilization of vehicle used in commission of the DUI (if registered to the offender)
-Mandatory 90 day vehicle license plate impoundment
-Both special license plates and interlock required during any period of time that limited driving privileges are imposed.

In comparison, a driver receiving his or her second DUI conviction within six years of the first conviction who did not refuse the breathalyzer only faces half of the time in jail -- 10 days. The other penalties, including the ALS, fines, plate impoundment and vehicle immobilization, remain the same regardless if the driver refused to take the breathalyzer.

The amount of jail time for offenders with two or more previous DUI convictions within a six year period doubles if the drivers refused the breathalyzer on their most current conviction. For example, drivers with two previous DUI convictions who refuse the breathalyzer will receive a mandatory minimum of 60 days in jail; their counterparts who did not refuse the test will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days.

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Statute is Constitutional

This past year, there was a constitutional challenge brought against the state law that requires judges to impose harsher penalties on repeat DUI offenders who refused to submit to breathalyzers. The challenge claimed that R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) violates the federal 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures as well as state and federal due process rights. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, ruled that R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) is constitutional and does not violate the provisions under either the state or federal constitution.

In State v. Hooper, defendant Corey Hooper was pulled over by a police officer after the officer saw him cross the center line. The officer smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath and the defendant admitted he had been drinking. After Hooper performed poorly on field sobriety tests, the officer arrested him for driving under the influence. At the police station, the officer attempted to administer a breathalyzer, but Hooper refused to take the test. Subsequently, Hooper was charged with a violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) and faced enhanced penalties for having a previous DUI conviction within the past six years.

At trial, Hooper was found guilty and ordered to serve 60 days in jail, with 40 of those days suspended, making his final total amount of time in jail the mandatory 20 days required by state law. Hooper appealed the trial court's verdict, arguing that the state law was unconstitutional.

On appeal, the appellate court reversed part of the lower court's decision. The court agreed with Hooper that the section of the law enhancing his penalty for refusing the breathalyzer was unconstitutional. The court, however, did not believe the entire statute was unconstitutional and said that Hooper should be sentenced to 10 days in jail for receiving a second DUI conviction within 20 years under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2).

The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court's decision and ruled that the sentencing enhancement law was constitutional. The high court cited several reasons for its decision. The court noted that the state's implied consent law previously had been upheld as constitutional and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment (State v. Starnes).

The court also noted that the US Supreme Court had even gone so far as to rule that a state did not need to get consent from a driver before taking fluids to administer a chemical alcohol test so long as the police have probable cause (Schmerber v. California). The Ohio Supreme Court stated that since the police are not permitted to randomly administer breathalyzers, but first must arrest a driver for DUI based on probable cause, there was no Fourth Amendment violation of Hooper's rights.

Finally, the court noted that it previously had held in a 1968 case that a driver accused of intoxication had no constitutional right to refuse take a reasonably reliable chemical test for intoxication (Westerville v. Cunningham). Thus, in this case, Hooper did not have a right to revoke his implied consent to take the breathalyzer.

Based upon this case law, the court ruled that Hooper's state and federal constitutional rights had not been violated and that he had been properly sentenced to serve 20 days in jail for his second DUI conviction within six years.

Conclusion

The state law enhancing penalties for refusing to take a breathalyzer puts drivers suspected of a DUI in a bad position. On the one hand, if the driver agrees to submit to the test, the driver may be willingly providing the state with the evidence it needs to convict the driver of a DUI. But on the other hand, if the driver refuses to submit to the test and is convicted of a DUI anyway, then the driver faces an enhanced jail sentence for the refusal.

For more information on defending against a DUI/OVI charge, contact an experienced attorney today. With the ever-increasing penalties for driving under the influence, you cannot afford not to have a good defense.

Article provided by PROBST LAW OFFICE LLC
Visit us at www.probstlawoffice.com

Of course you can go to trial on any charge ..... but refusing the breathalyzer is the same as failing a breathalyzer test. It's as close to an automatic "guilty" as you can get.

You are incorrect.

in·cor·rect Show Spelled[in-kuh-rekt] Show IPA
adjective
1. not correct as to fact; inaccurate; wrong: an incorrect statement.
2. improper, unbecoming, or inappropriate: incorrect behavior; incorrect attire.
3. not correct in form, use, or manner: an incorrect copy.

Refusing the DUI testing is an automatic suspension of your license. Period. Thats it. Done. Finito.

Then comes the trial part. The cop can testify that you refused to take the test. The state has to convince a judge / jury of your guilt. Your lawyer can plea the charges down to Reckless op in some cases. Your lawyer can fight to beat the charges, you can lose and be convicted of the charges.

These are two separate things here. You refuse the test, you automatically get a suspended license. The state STILL has to convict you. Your statements that

Quote:

---

"In Ohio, if you refuse to blow, you are immediately guilty of DUI.

---

Is Wrong. See definition of incorrect above.

All I can say is this: Good luck if you refuse a breathalyzer ..... because, in Ohio, that's as close to a guilty verdict as you can get.

For anyone who might accidentally drink too much when you go out.

Ginseng increases the clearance speed of alcohol 35-50%.

Just found this out from googling so I don't know much yet. But it is probably the best way to lower your blood alcohol level quickly.

I have no idea if you need to take it ahead of drinking or afterwards, but it might be worth playing around with if you end up too drunk at some point. Can probably pick it up at most CVS / Rite Aid type stores.

web page

That goes against everything I've ever been taught by all government agencies involved. While I would be an idiot to say it cannot be true, I would need some verification from medical studies outside of Korea before I view that as factual.

It'd be damned nice if that were true, though. Anything to keep the drunks off the road is a big win for humanity.

Ginseng supposedly increased oxygen flow to the brain .. so they might, in theory, help clear someone's head a bit earlier than someone not taking it ...... but I wouldn't want to bet my license on it.

Also, as far as I know, ginseng has no effect on the liver, which would be responsible for breaking down the alcohol in the bloodstream. Further, I wold think that alcohol on the breath would likely still be perceived by a breathalyzer test.

I am curious about something though ...... let's say that a guy went to a bar, and gargled liquor, but didn't swallow any of it. He just kept putting a little liquor in his mouth .. swirled it around good .... then spit it out.

I assume that he would get some minor absorption of liquor ..... and would obviously have a liquor smell on his breath ..... but would he register anything on a breathalyzer?

Also, if a guy did a shot right before leaving a bar, and was pulled over immediately and given the test, would that cause a higher reading?

one of the old tricks from people I knew was that they would use the spray breath fresheners (while the cop could see them after asked for a breathalyzer test). it's a bit of a gamble because all it does is buy some time (they have been shown to give false high readings on breathalyzer tests, so they have to give 15-30 minutes before reading after it. and it's not like you made that guy happy about having to wait. if the guy/gal isn't smart enough to wait, then you can get off at trial citing the fact you used it and they took the reading directly afterwards).

some other guys put copper (not the new zinc, but the real copper) pennies in their mouth because it was supposed to break down the alcohol there.

and then ginseng and a few other old wive's tales were bandied about as well. no idea if any of them actually worked though.

I usually go with this trick...

no drunk driving.

There was an episode of Mythbusters where they tried to do a bunch of things to beat a breathalyzer, and I don't think any of them worked. link

Also, the police are supposed to keep a close eye on you to make sure you haven't put anything in your mouth.

And, let's not forget the fact that police aren't stupid. If we know these "tricks", then so do they.

Not that I have ever been in that situation, but I've heard from multiple lawyers that you should never blow if you know the result will be over the limit.

While they do say that it's an automatic DUI if you don't, it can at least be fought in court.

I mean if you're going to blow over the limit anyways, you might as well refuse it and let the lawyer have a crack.

More than anything, don't get behind the wheel when you've had too much. (the more you know)

If you are a multiple time offender, you automatically get a bigger penalty for not blowing. (unless you are in the "aggravated DUI" range)

Way back when I was a really stupid kid, I drove through Poland on night on my way back from a party in New Middletown. I was absolutely blasted, but I drove anyway. I drove the long way to go around the middle of Poland. I got pulled over fr having my license plate light out.

Anyway, I was stewed, and the only thing I could think of was to act like I was tired, sick, and had a massive headache. I played it up really well .... saying that I was just trying to get home before my head exploded, and so on.

Amazingly enough, the cop let me go with a warning. No checks or anything.

A week later, I went to the same house for another party. I had 2 drinks. I get pulled over by the same cop. The taillight was fixed, but he said that I was driving awfully slow. (it's 25 through Poland, and they nail you for 26, so of course I was going slow) I had to go through the whole roadside junk ..... jumping through hoops ...... and then he called for the field breathalyzer. I was thinking ... you just let me go last week when I was blasted, and this week I'm going through all of this crap???" lol

Anyway, I blew something like a 0.04 ....... and he said "I could still take you in because you failed the field test.". Luckily my brother is a Sheriff, so they didn't ticket me ..... but they said that they couldn;t let me drive in that condition so they drove me home to Youngstown.

I had to go the next morning and get my car.

Crazy though ..... the very same cop pulls me over twice in 2 weeks, and could have nailed me the one time, and didn't ...... and almost nailed me the next time when he shouldn't have.

I found a new route home from New Middletown after that. lol

And not really knowing your age, I assume you are around 40, things weren't as ramped up as they are now. Now, that is all the cops are looking for after 9PM and use any excuse possible if there is even a hint you may have been drinking.....and that's a shame. Now it's a feather in their hat to make a DUI bust....and many of these arrests are for no reason other than the person was drinking. No doubt you don't want weavers out there....ahh...there's no good answer or solution.


Test yourself and drive with knowledge on your side.

J/C

I just wonder how he could even remember this all happening with a BAC that high. It's a wonder he didn't get into a wreck before the cops got him.

I hope he grows up. Although, I'm glad we didn't get him because of these character issues.

After watching his presser, You can really tell that he is sorry that he got caught.

.23 isn't that high. You are drunk, but it isn't to the point of memory loss and falling down.

I said it before that even started and now it's even worse.

He's painting a bullseye on himself.

He better live up to his word because now you'll have every beat reporter in Jacksonville and every rag tag magazine around just looking for that "gotchya moment" because he just couldn't shut-up about it. Man I've seen this before many times.......

Yep! Camera phones are a dime a dozen these days. All he has to do now is order a drink in public and he's all over the media.