Recently, I received my new telephone books and glued to the front of the book was an advertisement from a local attorney with his “Advise When Stopped for a DUI.” One of his prominent pieces of advise was “Never….Never Agree to take a Breathalyzer Test.” Is this blanket advise sound? In some instances yes. In most instances no. Like most advise, the surrounding circumstances play a major role in the decision. This blog discusses the consequences of one’s refusal.

First, one’s refusal to agree to take a test is a violation of Ohio’s “implied consent” statute. That statute, O.R.C. 4511.191, sets forth the law that the right to drive in Ohio implies the driver’s agreement to submit to a chemical test when requested. They may refuse, but that refusal will result in a one year suspension of their driving privileges in Ohio.

In addition to one’s violation of the implied consent statute, that refusal will trigger the new twenty year “look back” rule. Ordinarily, the enhancement provisions of Ohio’s OVI laws depend upon the number of OVI convictions within the prior six years. As a result of a refusal, the enhancement provision are triggered for any prior OVI violations in the last TWENTY years.

Finally, a recent Ohio Supreme Court decisions permitted courts to increase a violator’s penalties for refusing a chemical test. Historically, Ohio courts held to the rule that while a person’s refusal to take a test violated Ohio’s implied consent law, that person did have a constitutional right to refuse. As such, courts rarely increased a person’s penalties for their refusal to take a test. The Ohio Supreme court’s ruling changed that. The court ruled that the right to drive in Ohio is a privilege and not an inherent constitutional right. Therefore, a court is permitted to increase penalties for refusing without violating the person’s constitutional rights.

Allow me to provide you an example of the hornet’s nest that can result from one’s refusal to take a test. This was true case. My client was driving home from his girlfriend’s house where they were watching a football game. While watching the game, they had a pizza and a “couple of beers.” At one time my client was a heavy drinker and had several violations for OVI earlier in his life. But he had reformed and had no violations for OVI in the last six years. On the way home, he crossed the center line and was stopped by the local police. When asked to take a test, he refused.

Let’s assume he had taken the breathalyzer and been convicted. As a first time offender in six years, he would have faced a first degree misdemeanor carrying the following possible sentence:

Three days in jail or a three day driver’s intervention program, a $375-$1075 fine, a license suspension for six months to one year, and the right to request limited driving privileges for work, medical, etc after fifteen days.

So what were the consequences of his refusal?

First, he received a suspension of his driving privileges for one year. But, that wasn’t the worst of it. His refusal triggered the twenty year look back rule. While he had no violations in the last six years. He had five others in the prior twenty years. Therefore, under Ohio law, he faced a forth degree felony OVI conviction as it was his sixth violation in twenty years. He faced the following penalties: Actual incarceration for a minimum of 120 days (four months) up to 1 year, a $1350-$10,500 fine, a mandatory alcohol addiction program, license suspension for three years to life with no privileges for three years, an alcohol interlock on any car he drove, and a forfeiture of his car to the State of Ohio (he had just purchased, for cash, a new Jeep Cherokee).

So should he have agreed to take the breathalyzer? Of course. Even if convicted, the consequences were minimal compared to what he faced as a result of his refusal.

Knowing the accused’s background is critical in properly advising them. Offering blanket advise against submitting to a test can have dire consequences.

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.

When the OVI statutes in Ohio were initially amended many thought the administrative license suspension (ALS) appeal was required to be filed at the first appearance. But controversy arose, and thus divergent court opinions, in interpreting the legislature’s intent. This resulted from the act’s language that stated, “…the person may appeal the suspension at the person’s initial appearance on the charge.”

As a result of the language, many courts held that the requirement that the appeal be made at the defendant’s first appearance was discretionary, see State v. Nichols (Nov. 6, 2001), 5th Dist. Nos. 01CA7, 01CA8, and some permitted the filing of the ALS appeal after the initial appearance.

Subsequently, the legislature amended the statute permitting the filing of an ALS appeal within 30 days after the defendant’s first appearance. While the language of the statute still contained the word “may,” one Ohio district court opined this discretion is no longer available.

A Seventh Appellate Court case, State v. Derov, 2009 Ohio 4810, involved a defendant who filed her ALS appeal after the 30-day time period. The lower court denied her appeal citing the fact that the appeal was not filed timely. In her appeal the defendant argued that the language still contained the term “may” and, thus, the court had the discretion to hear her appeal outside the statutory period. The appellate court disagreed. In its opinion the court stated:

“There is no reason why the time period for this type of appeal would be treated differently from the jurisdictional time periods mandated in other appellate contexts. The use of “may” in the statute does not mean that one can file an ALS appeal at the initial appearance or within thirty days of that initial appearance or at any time the person so chooses.”

The court went on to say “‘may’ can be construed as mandatory, citing State ex rel. Smith v. Barnell, 109 Ohio St. 246, 256.

Therefore, any defendant or their attorney should be aware that many courts no longer hold that the time limit within which to file an ALS appeal is discretionary and their failure to file within the 30-day time limit could jeopardize that appeal.

Many of my colleagues claim if a person is found not guilty of driving under the influence, the violation of the implied consent law (for refusing to take a chemical test) is obviated and their client will not loose their driving privileges. A recent Ohio case, City of Westlake v. Pesta, 2009 Ohio 4713 proves them to be wrong.

In this case, the defendant refused to submit to a chemical test. In addition to the OVI charge, his license was suspended, immediately, for his violation of Ohio’s implied consent law. Pesta was eventually found not guilty of OVI and petitioned the court for a reinstatement of his driving privileges. His petition was denied.

In Ohio, no person may operate a motor vehicle on the public roads or on any private property used by the public without a valid license, R.C. 4510.123(A)(1). The licensed operation of a motor vehicle in this state is a privilege, not a right. Maumee v. Gabriel (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 60, 63, 518 N.E.2d 558.

One of the conditions attached to the privilege of being licensed to drive is the operator’s consent to chemical or other tests of the operator’s blood, urine, or breath if a law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the operator had been driving while intoxicated or impaired. R.C. 4511.191(A)(2).

The operator may refuse to take any requested tests, but does so at the peril of losing driving privileges. If the operator of a motor vehicle refuses to submit to a requested test, the arresting officer must seize the operator’s license and immediately administratively suspend the driver’s operating privileges. R.C. 4511.192(D)(1). An administrative license suspension goes into effect immediately, and the suspension is not affected by any 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.

What does all this mean? It means that even if one is found not guilty of driving under the influence, their refusal to take a test will result in a suspension. The time for appealing their suspension is within the statutory period for appealing an administrative license suspension, not after the adjudication of the OVI charge.

If you’ve read this blog, I have, on numerous occasions, referred to sentencing guidelines when discussing multiple violations of Ohio’s DUI law. To reiterate, DUI sentences are enhanced if found guilty of additional DUI offenses within a 6 year period (See Judge Jennifer Weiler’s DUI Guideline Charts). I’ve also discussed the right of a judge to sentence a defendant to more than the minimum for various reasons (see my blog regarding a defendant’s refusal to submit to a test). Recently, the Mahoning County Court of Appeals sustained a lower court’s decision to sentence a defendant to a maximum 5 years in prison for his second felony DUI

Unfortunately, many, including attorneys, habitually think of DUI sentences in terms of the minimum, i.e., first offense 3 days, second offense 10 days, etc. When preparing for sentencing, most contemplate the minimum sentence without taking into effect the range of sentencing the court is permitted to use. If we look at Judge Weiler’s charts, under the column labeled “incarceration,” the court can sentence an offender 3 days to 6 months for a first offense, 10 days to 6 months on the second, 30 days to 1 year on the third, and so on. Note further, the chart shows a doubling of these sentences if other factors are present such as a breathalyzer reading of .17 or more or a refusal to take a test.

But, in preparing for sentencing, one should always be cognizant that any judge could sentence a defendant to a greater sentence than the minimum. Ohio’s sentencing laws do give judges some guidelines to use in sentencing and, in fact, does recommend the minimum sentence for a first offender if no other recidivism factors (factors that would tend to point to repeat offenses) are present. But, these guidelines, according to statute, apply to felony sentencing only. Therefore, these guidelines are not applicable until the offender has reached their 4th offense within 6 years.

As a result, in misdemeanor violations such as lower tier DUI’s (3 or less offenses in 6 years), it is in the discretion of the court to determine length of sentence. In my experience, judges will take the following factors into consideration during sentencing:

1. Prior DUI convictions outside the 6 year period.

2. Traffic and criminal record.

3. Refusal to take the test.

4. Lack of cooperation with the police.

5. History of alcohol or drug abuse.

Therefore, it is vitally important that you be aware that a court, in its discretion, can sentence a defendant to more than the minimum and be prepared to address this issue at the time of sentencing.