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.
Nice brief and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you as your information.