![]() |
Apparently, this is State specific. Authorities in Ohio now can force drivers who have two or more drunk driving convictions to submit to a blood or urine test without their consent. A new law that took effect on September 30, 2008 allows police offers to demand that a driver take a blood or urine test if they've been convicted two or more times. The law applies to people convicted of driving under the influence twice in six years or five times in the last twenty years. The law also requires an online database to track offenders with drunk-driving or related offenses.
In the unlikely event I were stopped for DUI, I still wouldn't say or do anything without consulting an attorney.
Originally Posted by citation35hf
(Post 597838)
Sigh......Let me walk you through a DUI arrest.
If you do not consent to a chemical test, a warrant for your blood will be issued within x hours (usually only 1 or 2) and your license will be automatically suspended for X amount of days) If the subject refuses to blow on the actual breathalizer at the station or jail or whereever, you advise subject they are now under arrest, you then get the warrant signed by the judge, transport the prisoner to the local hospital have a nurse draw blood for testing, then transport the prisoner back to the Jail, this person is arrested for "Refusal". |
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
(Post 598025)
First off, everything written above is completely wrong. Law and admissibility rules vary by jurisdiction.
|
Originally Posted by citation35hf
(Post 598195)
Circuit and appellate Courts cannot overrule supreme court rulings. Portable PBT's BAC readings are not admissible in court ANYWHERE.
I find it hard to believe that SCOTUS has ruled every make and model of PBT as inadmissible, nor would they make a blanket rule precluding future technology from being used in enforcement of DUI laws. Now, I've been wrong before, if you can cite the case, I'll admit being wrong. |
Originally Posted by Two-percent
(Post 598053)
Apparently, this is State specific. Authorities in Ohio now can force drivers who have two or more drunk driving convictions to submit to a blood or urine test without their consent. A new law that took effect on September 30, 2008 allows police offers to demand that a driver take a blood or urine test if they've been convicted two or more times. The law applies to people convicted of driving under the influence twice in six years or five times in the last twenty years. The law also requires an online database to track offenders with drunk-driving or related offenses.
In the unlikely event I were stopped for DUI, I still wouldn't say or do anything without consulting an attorney. |
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
(Post 598558)
Like I said, you're incorrect. The Minnesota State Patrol carries PBTs that provide admissible results.
I find it hard to believe that SCOTUS has ruled every make and model of PBT as inadmissible, nor would they make a blanket rule precluding future technology from being used in enforcement of DUI laws. Now, I've been wrong before, if you can cite the case, I'll admit being wrong. |
Originally Posted by citation35hf
(Post 598867)
Portable "hand held" breathalyzer's, BAC readings do not hold up in court. Yes, you can putt the reading in your Probable Cause narrative, however if you tried to charge someone with DUI/OWI solely on that BAC reading, good luck getting a guilty charge, the prosecutor would probably not even file. The magic number when you see "so and so was arrested for .15" or whatever comes from a large computer like machine that the subject blows into at a PD/Hospital/Jail whereever. That number my friend is the one admissible in court.
|
Originally Posted by sqwkvfr
(Post 598558)
Like I said, you're incorrect. The Minnesota State Patrol carries PBTs that provide admissible results.
I find it hard to believe that SCOTUS has ruled every make and model of PBT as inadmissible, nor would they make a blanket rule precluding future technology from being used in enforcement of DUI laws. Now, I've been wrong before, if you can cite the case, I'll admit being wrong. This specific topic is my profession, I have hundreds of hours of learning in it and performing it. You obviously don't understand how a DUI arrest happens. But, instead of listening to my advice and explanation you simply have watched "Cops" too many times and think you know everything. It's OK, that is 70% of this country, caused by things like CSI and what not; I don't know how many simple theft runs I have been on for a simple report, and the complaint ant has demanded that I "dust for prints" or "check for DNA". Unfortunately TV and movies have convinced everyone that today's law enforcement has that capabilities, unfortunately its not like that. I encourage you to go do a ride along with your local police department, learn about what you are so quick to give incorrect information on, and come back and report. |
Originally Posted by citation35hf
(Post 598864)
If you said or did nothing, In Indiana, that would be refusal and you would be arrested for refusal. And I am not debating whether or not drivers with convictions must submit to chemical tests, that's another topic in itself and irrelevant.
Maybe during this event, procedure has been compromised. They are in many cases. I would try to contain the damage by limiting the evidence. According to one expert in OH dui law, OH only requires calibration of breathylizers once per week. I'd rather face a judge with the cop's subjective opinion and my subjective opinion. I think the odds are better that way. If you have to plea, then so be it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:01 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands