Mark Godbey & Associates » DUI

What to Do If You Are Charged with a DUI

admin — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:42:06 +0000

Often, when people are charged with drunk driving or driving under the influence (DUI), they consider defending themselves or using a public defender. Sometimes hiring an attorney may not be your best choice; however, when it comes to DUI charges, a lawyer can make a big difference.

The court system is confusing and a good attorney will help argue your case and explain the possible consequences you face. Lawyers are not magicians, however they can increase the chances your charges will be dropped or lowered.

Experienced attorneys will understand how to interview witnesses and officers; as well as what evidence will help your case. They have access to expert witnesses who know how to refute the accuracy of blood and urine tests. Attorneys will also be able to tell you what chemicals and over the counter drugs could impact the results of a breathalyzer.

Cost is one of the most common concerns surrounding hiring a DUI attorney. Many people facing DUI charges believe a lawyer is too expensive and they can avoid the cost by defending themselves. While a lawyer is a larger up front expense, he or she could save you a great deal of money in the long run. If you are still concerned about the cost of an attorney, consider how much even two or three months in jail will cost you in lost income. It could even mean losing your job.

Others believe they can save money by using a court appointed attorney. DUI laws are constantly being modified and only an attorney specializing in that type of law will be able to stay up to date on all of the changes. When searching for a personal lawyer, you should look for someone who has years of experience in DUI laws. A less experienced lawyer means you could face higher fees or more time in jail.

Lawyers are able to do the most good for first time offenders. Hiring an attorney after your first offense increases the chances you will keep your license and put the charges behind you. He or she will also check the evidence to make sure it supports an arrest. If the evidence is weak, your charges could be dismissed.

If you are involved in the following situations, defending yourself or using a court appointed attorney should not be considered an option:

• You have been arrested for a DUI in the past.
• You are accused of injuring someone.
• You do not understand your rights.
• You do not know which steps you need to take.

When searching for a DUI attorney, look for a firm that specializes in serious injury or drunken driving cases. Find out which professional organizations the attorneys participate in and how many years of experience they have.

Do You Have to Take Field Sobriety Tests in Kentucky?

admin — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:40:53 +0000

Absolutely not. You are never obligated to prove to an officer or deputy that you ARE NOT committing a crime. It is not illegal to drink and drive, and if you don’t feel comfortable taking the tests, you cannot be forced to. The law presumes you are innocent until the police can develop probable cause that a crime has occurred. Police develop probable cause through bad driving, field sobriety tests and finally, the portable breath test they use to detect the presence of alcohol.

Unfortunately, most officers will arrest you if you refuse to preform the field sobriety tests as directed. But, if you agree to take the tests and do not perform PERFECTLY, you will be arrested and the results of those tests will be used by the government to convict you in a Court of Law.

In my time as a Kentucky DUI Trial Lawyer, I have reviewed cruiser camera tapes where it was obvious the person was scared, nervous or tired and not at all intoxicated and I have heard testimony from officers who have no idea how to administer field sobriety tests, but used them to arrest my client. People are inclined to prove their own innocence, just know that you do not
have to.

If you have found yourself accused of Driving Under the Influence in Northern Kentucky, contact Zachary Smith, a Kentucky DUI Trial Lawyer at (513)238-7900 or zach@godbeylaw.com.

Zachary D. Smith, Attorney at Law
Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 – 6650 phone
(513) 241 – 6649 fax

This article was written by attorney Zachary D. Smith. For more information, please visit our web site at www.GodbeyLaw.com or call our office at 513-241-6650.

Penalties Increase for Drunk Driving Offenses in Ohio

admin — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:11:31 +0000

In September of 2008, new changes went into effect for Ohio laws governing allegations of “Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs” (OMVI). Formally nown as “DUIs,” Ohio’s “OMVI” statute was recently overhauled by the Ohio legislature. Among other changes, the new provisions increase penalties for particular offenses, increase mandatory minimums on certain portions of sentences, revise the use of treatment programs, and expand the use of “ignition interlock” devices. In addition, the revised laws expand the ways in which law enforcement officials can compel a suspect to submit to a “forced” chemical test of their Blood-Alcohol Content (BAC). The new law provides that, in certain circumstances, law enforcement officials may now use “whatever reasonable means are necessary” in order to complete the chemical test. See, Ohio Revised Code §§4511.19 and 4511.191(a)(5)(a)-(b).

While the full effect (and constitutionality) of these revisions remains to be seen, one thing is clear: Ohio is stepping-up enforcement and punishment for drunk driving offenses. If you or someone you know has been charged with a drunk driving offense, call our offices TODAY for a FREE initial consultation to know and protect your rights.

Blake P. Somers, Attorney at Law
Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 – 6650 phone
(513) 241 – 6649 fax

Appeals Court Makes it Easier to Arrest Drivers Under 21 for DUI

admin — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:43:43 +0000

The First District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County, OH) rejected well settled law that required police officers to look for “slight indicators of impairment,” when deciding to arrest a driver under the age of 21 for DUI. In its opinion, the Court held that despite passing the field sobriety tests, an 18-year-old’s glassy, bloodshot eyes and an admission to drinking beer hours earlier gave
officers probable cause to arrest him for DUI.

Click here for the full opinion.

Zachary D. Smith, Attorney at Law
Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 – 6650 phone
(513) 241 – 6649 fax

DUI Consequences For CDL Drivers

admin — Tue, 08 May 2007 15:18:00 +0000

Almost everyone knows that a DUI can be devastating to any driver, resulting in license suspensions, fines and possible jail time. Yet, for Commercial Driver’s License holders the penalties can be even more harsh. This article is meant to outline the consequences of DUIs for CDL drivers in Ohio. For more detailed and up to date information please refer to the most recent version of the Ohio Revised Code – ORC.

First off, the term used for operating a vehicle intoxicated in Ohio is no longer the familiar term DUI (Driving Under the Influence). The correct term, and more importantly, the term used by the Ohio courts is OVI, or Operating a Vehicle Intoxicated.

The blood alcohol concentration required for a CDL-OVI when driving a commercial vehicle is lower than that which is required for a regular OVI. A regular OVI requires a .08% blood alcohol breath test, yet a CDL-OVI when driving a commercial vehicle only requires a .04% blood alcohol breath test. The blood and urine tests for CDL holders are also roughly half the level required for regular OVI’s. See ORC 4506.15(A) and ORC 4511.19.

Additionally, a CDL holder driving any vehicle under the influence of any controlled substance is a CDL-OVI. This applies to commercial vehicles as well as to private vehicles. See ORC 4506.15(A)(5).

CDL suspensions for OVI’s are especially harsh. There is a mandatory one year CDL disqualification for a first OVI, regardless of whether the operator was in a commercial or private vehicle. No driving privileges may be granted for any CDL suspension. See ORC 4506.16(D)(1) and 4506.161.

If a CDL holder is in a commercial vehicle, then a first refusal results in an automatic one year CDL suspension. A “refusal” refers to any driver who refuses to submit to either a breath, urine or blood test when a law enforcement official has reasonable cause to believe that the driver may be under the influence. Thus, even if the CDL driver is not actually under the influence, if he refuses the test in a commercial vehicle, his CDL could be suspended for one year. See ORC 4506.16(D)(1).

And last but not least, the Ohio Revised Code requires a lifetime CDL suspension for a second OVI conviction or for a second refusal in a commercial vehicle. See ORC 4506.16(D)(2).

If you or anyone you know have questions about an OVI or a CDL or both, feel free to call our firm to discuss the matter with an attorney.

Posted by: Joseph Spring, Mark E. Godbey & Associates, (513) 241-6650

Police Officer Has Probable Cause for Traffic Stop Even if Control Device is not Authorized by Statute

admin — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:26:00 +0000

The Ohio Supreme Court recently made an important decision in the case of Bowling Green vs. Godwin which affects many people, especially those suspected of driving under the influence or persons who may have contraband in their vehicle. The question before the Court was whether a police officer has probable cause to stop someone when the officer observes him/her violating a traffic control device (such as running a red light), even when that device was not correctly authorized by statute.

The Supreme Court ruled that found probable cause does exist, even when the police officer stops a driver for violating a traffic control device that is not authorized by law. In fact, even though the driver could not be convicted of the original traffic offense, this does not invalidate the stop. The Court’s decision was based upon the theory that a police officer cannot reasonably know that the sign or traffic control device is not authorized at the time he is stopping the driver.

For more information regarding DUI defense and other criminal matters, please contact Mark Godbey and Associates at 513-241-6650.