» Font Size «
drinking driving don't mix

Cleveland Ohio OVI/DUI Lawyer

Ohio's OVI (Operating a Vehicle under the Influence) law is one of the toughest in the nation. Beside the possible incarceration and financial burdens incurred, the automatic license suspension provisions can have a devastating affect on your right to drive for an extensive period of time. New enactments added such penalties as mandatory treatment and interlocks, restricted plates, and immobilization or even forfeiture of your car. And your conviction stays on your driving record for life. Your OVI conviction will remain on you record forever.

In addition to these provisions, recent amendments to the law exact greatly enhanced and mandated jail sentences for multiple offenders and the possibility of incurring a felony record. Additionally, if you own a commercial driver's license, an OVI conviction could mean a possible loss of your CDL for a minimum of one year and in the case of multiple offenses, for life.

It is vitally important that any one accused of an OVI seek immediate advise from a professional having the training and education to handle these matters. The law is extremely complicated and requires the utmost knowledge and experience to defend. Your life and livelihood depends on a thorough and meticulous defense.

The purpose of this website is to give you some understanding of the Ohio's OVI law.



A recent case from the Fourth Appellate District of Ohio is interesting as it succinctly outlines the necessary elements necessary for an arrest for a DUI or OVI.  The case, State v. Chevalier, 2010 Ohio 4096, arose from the defendant arrest for OVI.
The defendant was stopped for going 43mph over the seed limit.  When speaking with the defendant, the offices immediately suspected that the defendant was driving under the influence. According to the officers, Chevalier spoke “unnaturally” slow, and her demeanor was “strange.”  The defendant admitted having one drink.  The deputies asked the defendant to exit the vehicle and perform the three standard field sobriety tests – HGN, walk and turn and one-leg stand.  According to the officers she failed all three tests.  She was placed under arrest and transported to the local to the local sheriffs’s department where she submitted to a breathalyzer test.  The test result was .159.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress claiming the deputies lacked probable cause to arrest her. Chevalier did not contest that there was indicia of alcohol consumption. Instead, she argued there was no probable cause for her arrest because in addition to indicia of alcohol consumption there must also be evidence of impaired driving or impaired coordination.
In its opinion the court stated:
“The standard for determining whether the police have probable cause to arrest an individual for DUI is whether, at the moment of arrest, the police had sufficient information, derived from a reasonably trustworthy source, of facts and circumstances sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence.” State v. Brungs, 4th Dist. No. 05CA18, 2005 Ohio 5776, at P25, citing State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 427, 732 N.E.2d 952, 2000 Ohio 212. To make this determination, the trial court should consider the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. Brungs at P25. Homan, citing State v. Miller (1997), 117 Ohio App.3d 750, 761, 691 N.E.2d 703; State v. Brandenburg (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 109, 534 N.E.2d 906.
“Furthermore, if an arrest is based upon R.C. 4511.19(A)(1), an officer must observe indicia of both alcohol consumption and impaired driving or coordination before there will be probable cause for an arrest.” State v. Coates, 4th Dist. No. 01CA21, 2002 Ohio 2160, at *6.
First, the court pointed to her driving 43 mph over the speed limit.   In addition, the court the described the defendant’s failure to take instruction during the field sobriety tests, her lack of coordination, impaired speech, and her inability to complete some tests.
As the court stated, in determining probable cause to arrest the court will look at the “…totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest.”  The reader is cautioned that the evidentiary level for probable cause is much less than the level necessary for conviction.  The police need only show “sufficient information, derived from a reasonably trustworthy source, of facts and circumstances sufficient to cause a prudent person to believe that the suspect was driving under the influence.”

A recent 5th Appellate District case addresses the issue of procedural abnormalities in the prosecution of per se violations.  In the case, State v. Whitt, 2010 Ohio 3761, the defendant was involved in a one vehicle accident.  The defendant was transported to the hospital prior to the OHP trooper [...] Continue Reading…

A recent Ohio case illustrates a very important aspect of Ohio’s OVI law.  The case of State v. Lewis, 2010 Ohio 2872, exemplifies an additional consequence of one’s refusal to submit to a chemical test.

The case involved a defendant’s arrest for OVI.  The defendant refused to submit to a [...] Continue Reading…

A recent Ohio case demonstrates to what length some jurisdictions will go in their attempt to prosecute violators of Ohio’s OVI laws. In the case, State v. Willig, 2010 Ohio 2560, the state attempted to retry a Defendant on a case dismissed by the Franklin County Municipal Court [...] Continue Reading…

While somewhat off the topic of OVI, a recent Ohio case is significant relating to the supervision of child drinking underage.  The case, State v. Wise, 2010 Ohio 2040, involved the underage drinking by a 19 year old and subsequent arrest for violating Ohio underage drinking law, R.C. 4301.69(E)(1).
The [...] Continue Reading…