» 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 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 chemical test.  But, based upon personal observations, the accused’s traffic violations and field sobriety tests, the defendant was charged with OVI.  The defendant was eventually found not guilty of OVI and the court terminated the Administrative License Suspension.
The City of Cincinnati appealed the termination of the ALS claiming the court was wrong in terminating the ALS due to R.C. 4511.191(B) that provides for an automatic license suspension following the refusal to submit to a chemical test. R.C. 4511.191(D)(1) specifically states that “[a]ny subsequent finding that the person is not guilty of the charge that resulted in the person being requested to take the chemical test or tests under division (A) of this section does not affect the suspension.”
The appellate court agreed with the city citing the case of State v. Kurtz (Dec. 31, 1997), 2nd Dist. No. 97-CA-25.  In that case Kurtz had been stopped and refused to submit to a chemical test resulting in an ALS.  Kurtz eventually pled no-contest to a lesser charge, but the court continued to ALS citing the above statute.
So, in refusing a chemical test the violator should be aware of this additional consequence of their refusal – a continuation of the ALS even if found not guilty of OVI.

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…

The first question from all of my professional clients charged with an OVI is “Can I lose my license if found guilty of OVI?”  In past blogs, I’ve discussed the effect of an OVI conviction if you have a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and the effect of an OVI [...] Continue Reading…

From time to time I receive a call from an individual seeking to withdraw their previously entered plea of guilty or no contest. Unfortunately, Ohio law is extremely restrictive when it comes to the right of an individual to withdraw their plea after sentencing.  A recent Ninth Appellate District [...] Continue Reading…