Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum  

Go Back   Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum > Speed Trap & Traffic Enforcement > Economics & Politics
Radar Detectors Forum Logon:

Economics & Politics Discussion of the economic and political market driving factors of automated enforcement technology.

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 2009-10-09
NMA Reporter NMA Reporter is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: 2008 Feb
Posts: 125
NMA Reporter is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Ohio Supreme Court Criminalizes Breathalyzer Refusal

Article: Ohio Supreme Court Criminalizes Breathalyzer Refusal

Ohio  Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court of Ohio last Wednesday voted 4-3 to impose criminal sanctions for the first time on a motorist exercising his right to refuse to submit to warrantless testing after being accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Until recently, the only sanction imposed for such refusal was administrative.

The decision came down in the case of Union County resident Corey Hoover who had been pulled over by Deputy Kelly S. Nawman on September 8, 2006. Nawman testified that Hoover's tire crossed over the center line of the road, that he smelled of alcohol and that he performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Nawman arrested Hoover and asked him to perform a breathalyzer test at the sheriff's office. Hoover refused.

In 2004, the Ohio legislature "enhanced" the criminal penalty for anyone with a prior DUI conviction who refused to take a breath test upon the demand of a police officer. As a result, Hoover was sentenced to serve the minimum twenty-day jail term set by the enhanced penalty statute. Had he not exercised the refusal option, Hoover's sentence would have been reduced to just ten days in jail. The majority insisted that imposing criminal sanctions in this way did not violate the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and double jeopardy or the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.

"It is crucial to note that the refusal to consent to testing is not, itself, a criminal offense," Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote for the majority. "The activity prohibited... is operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A person's refusal to take a chemical test is simply an additional element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt along with the person's previous DUI conviction... Asking a driver to comply with conduct he has no right to refuse and thereafter enhancing a later sentence upon conviction does not violate the constitution."

The high court pointed out that only the license suspension penalty would be imposed on a driver who refused a breath test but was not convicted of DUI. Three justices disagreed with this analysis, insisting the majority was indeed criminalizing the exercise of a constitutional right.

"The issue here is whether the state can criminalize a person's failure to consent to a warrantless search, or in other words, to force a consent to search through the coercive power of threatened jail time," Justice Paul E. Pfeifer wrote in the dissent. "Imposing criminal sanctions for failure to consent goes far beyond the state's power... to regulate the licensure of drivers. The statute at issue herein imposes a codified dilemma -- consent to a warrantless search or face the possibility of a criminal penalty -- and thus amounts to coercion. [The statute] therefore violates defendants' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution."

A copy of the decision is available in a 65k PDF file at the source link below. Source
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California Supreme Court Admits, Ignores Breathalyzer Flaws NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2009-07-15 15:17
California Supreme Court: Breathalyzer Results Can Be Challenged NMA Reporter NMA Articles 0 2009-07-14 21:16
Minnesota Supreme Court Orders Access to Breathalyzer Source Code NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2009-05-04 20:02
Ohio Court Tosses Laser Speed Gun Readings NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-04-30 23:14
Ohio Court Tosses Laser Speed Gun Readings NMA Reporter Economics & Politics 0 2008-04-30 23:14

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:52.

©2019 SpeedTrapHunter