(419) 352-9999 lawfirm567@gmail.com

DUI Attorney Bowling Green, Ohio

610 5th St, Bowling Green, OH 43402

Attorney Andrew R. Schuman

FREE CONSULTATION

DUI Attorney Bowling Green, Ohio

Attorney Andrew R. Schuman

610 5th St, Bowling Green, OH 43402

Z

Breath Test Cases

They can be beat! Even High Tier OVI’s

Z

Refusal Cases

We know the winning arguments!

Z

Multiple Offender

2nd Offense OVI? 3rd Offense OVI? We can Help!

Z

Felony OVI

You know you need a good DUI Lawyer. Call Now!

 

DUI Attorney Bowling Green, Ohio

If you or a loved one were charged with a DUI in the Bowling Green Municipal Court (or a Felony DUI in the Wood County Common Pleas Court) we can help! Attorney Schuman has helped hundreds of people just like you facing DUI charges (called OVI in Ohio). Attorney Schuman has extensive training and experience representing clients facing DUI charges in Bowling Green, Ohio and surrounding areas. DUI / OVI law is without questions one of Attorney Schuman’s special areas of focus.

We know you have a lot of questions. We will provide you with some general information on this website, but we recommend calling as soon as possible so that Attorney Schuman can give you specific advice for your particular situation.

Arraignment – DUI Charge – Bowling Green Municipal Court

The first thing that must be addressed is your Arraignment. The Arraignment is your first court date. The date and time of your Arraignment should be located near the bottom of the citation. At the Arraignment you will have to appear before the Judge and you will have to choose to enter one of several different Pleas. We almost always recommend entering a Not Guilty Plea. But, please contact Attorney Schuman directly so that he can give you the correct advice for your particular case.

 Having a DUI Lawyer with you at your arraignment is strongly recommended. Not only will Attorney Schuman assist you with entering the proper Plea, he can also help you complete the proper waiver forms; obtain a release to get your vehicle out of impound if it was towed; challenge the Administrative License Suspension or ask for a Stay of the Suspension (if appropriate); and advise you on the proper procedure for obtaining driving privileges.

How do I get the Police Report and Video for a DUI Case

There are several time sensitive documents that must be filed soon after your arraignment. These include, but are not limited to, Request for Discovery; Bill of Particulars; Administrative License Suspension Appeal; and Motion for Leave to File Pretrial Motions (including a Motion to Suppress). You will need a Bowling Green DUI Lawyer to assist you with filing these documents.

Should I get a DUI Attorney in Bowling Green, OH?

Following your Arraignment your case will be schedule for a Pretrial. This is where having an experienced DUI Lawyer who regularly practices in the Bowling Green Municipal Court (or Wood County Court) will really start making a difference. Attorney Schuman is familiar with the Judges and Prosecutors in these courts. He will evaluate the evidence and determine what arguments are available to gain leverage for Pretrial Negotiations.

DUI Reduced to Reckless Driving?

You are probably wondering whether a Ohio DUI can be reduced to Reckless Operation, Physical Control, or even dismissed outright. The answer depends on the particular facts and circumstances of your case. Generally, you must have some type of legal argument that is strong enough to convince the prosecutor that they might lose if the case goes forward to a Motion to Suppress or Trial. Honestly, to have any real chance at a reduction, dismissal, or acquittal for an Ohio OVI charge you must hire an experienced OVI attorney!

How to Beat a DUI in Ohio?

 What arguments can a  DUI Lawyer make to beat a DUI charge? There are infinite possibilities. However, generally, OVI arguments fall into certain categories. 

Exclusionary Rule – If the officer violated your constitutional rights, the evidence obtained as a result of that violation must be excluded from the evidence.  This may include field sobriety tests and even the breath, blood or urine test results. If you are talking to a DUI Attorney in Bowling Green, Ohio and they are not investigating potential constitutional violations committed by the officer, then you are not talking to a DUI Attorney! 

Probable Cause to StopThe officer must have constitutional justification to stop your vehicle. If the officer stopped your vehicle without probable cause / reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and there were no other exceptions to your 4th Amendment Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, then the stop is subject to the exclusionary rule.  

For example, let’s say you were stopped for a Marked Lanes Violation.  Attorney Schuman would file the proper requests to obtain the officer’s dash cam video. After reviewing the video, he discovers that your vehicle’s right tires drove on top of the white fog line, but they did not cross over. Attorney Schuman would file a Motion to Suppress which contains case law that states a Marked Lanes Violation does not occur when a motorist drives on but not over the fog line. The prosecutor may offer a reduction at that point or you could go forward with the hearing on Motion to Suppress and let the Judge decide. If the Judge rules the stop was unconstitutional (which he should), then he would also rule all evidenced obtained as a result of the bad stop must be suppressed (or excluded). This means, the prosecutor would have little to no evidence to work with and would therefore be required to dismiss your OVI case. All the best DUI Lawyers know that breath test cases are often won or lost at the hearing on Motion to Suppress. 

Reasonable Suspicion to Conduct Field Sobriety Tests – Let’s say the officer stopped you for an equipment violation (e.g. no license plate light). The officer would be required to articulate reasonable suspicion that you were impaired before he could ask you to take field sobriety tests. If he did not have sufficient indicators of impairment, the evidence obtained from that point would be subject to the exclusionary rule. Attorney Schuman is well versed in the case law which discusses what constitutes reasonable suspicion of impairment. 

Field Sobriety Tests – The officer is required to administer the Field Sobriety Tests in substantial compliance with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations and procedures. The best DUI attorneys in Bowling Green, Ohio are actually more familiar with the regulations and procedures than the officers conducting the tests. Attorney Schuman will review the dash cam video to determine if the tests were conducted properly. If they were not, the tests will be excluded from being used against at trial. Also, the tests could not be factored into the officer’s decision for probable cause to arrest you.

 Probable Cause to Arrest – If the officer lacked probable cause to arrest you then the arrest was illegal and the evidence obtained (e.g. BAC test) will be excluded from evidence.

Breath test machine failures, inaccurate results, failure to comply with testing regulations – There are literally hundreds of rules and regulations the police must follow when administering breath tests, blood tests, or urine tests. If the police failed to follow these rules and regulations, the remedy could be exclusion of the results. For example, the police must conduct an instrument check on a BAC Breath Test Machine:

  • OAC 3701-53-04(A) The instrument check should only be performed by a senior operator.
  • OAC 3701-53-09(A) Permits should be issued by the Director of the Department of Health.
  • OAC 3701-53-09(B) Permits shall expire two years from the date of issue.
  • OAC 3701-53-04 (A) Instrument checks must be performed within 192 hours of the last instrument check.
  • OAC 3701-53-04(A)(1) The results of the instrument check must be within (0.005) grams per 210 liters of the target value.
  • OAC 3701-53-04(A)(1)  If the test value is outside of the range, the senior operator shall conduct a second check with solution from another bottle.  If the second check is also out of the range, the instrument shall be taken out of service.
  • OAC 3701-53-04 (A)(2) The instrument must detect RFI of abort the test.  If the RFI detector check is not valid, the instrument shall not be used until serviced.
  • OAC 3701-53-04(B) The instrument must be checked when put in service or returned from service or maintenance.
  • OAC 3701-53-04(A)(1) Check solution shall not be used more than three months after the date of first use, or after manufacturer’s expiration date, or three years after date of manufacturer.
  • OAC 3701-42-04(C) Calibration solution shall be refrigerated after first use and container retained until solution is discarded.
  • OAC 3701-53-04(A)(1) Solution shall be approved by the Director of Health.
  • OAC 3701-53-01 The results of all checks shall be retained for not less than three years.

DUI Trial – ultimately, the state still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you operated a motor vehicle; within the court’s jurisdiction; and that you were impaired or tested over the prohibited level. If you want a DUI Attorney who has trial experience (which you should), call Attorney Schuman now!   

What are the penalties for an Ohio OVI?

The penalties assessed for a DUI in Ohio vary from court to court and from situation to situation. There are mandatory minimum penalties associated with all DUI charges. For instance, a first offense low breath test OVI carries a mandatory minimum 3 days in jail / 3 day DIP, one year license suspension, 6 points on your record, and $375 fine. However, these are only the “minimum penalties” for a “first offense.” The Judge has discretion to sentence you to up to 180 days in jail, a 3 year license suspension, a $1,075 fine, yellow party plates, interlock (blow n’ go); community work service; intensive treatment; etc. Moreover, if you have prior OVI’s the sentence increases. For instance, a 3rd offense OVI refusal in a ten year period carries a minimum 60 days in jail up to a year, a two year license suspension up to twelve years, a minimum $850 fine up to $2,750, as well as a host of other severe penalties. These are life changing penalties and certainly require that you treat an OVI charge very seriously.

DUI Attorney Bowling Green, OH

The above examples are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fighting a DUI charge in Bowling Green, Ohio. There are a lot of lawyers in Wood County, but only a few who actually know what it really takes to beat a DUI charge. Give Attorney Schuman a call now. It won’t take long for you to realize that Attorney Schuman knows what it takes. 

 

 

 

Z

Breath Test Cases

They can be beat! Even High Tier OVI’s

Z

Refusal Cases

We know the winning arguments!

Z

Multiple Offender

2nd Offense OVI? 3rd Offense OVI? We can Help!

Z

Felony OVI

You know you need a good DUI Lawyer. Call Now!

 

Bowling Green, Ohio Lawyer Underage Drinking, Public Intox, Open Container

Underage Drinking / Possession of Alcohol / Prohibitions Bowling Green, Ohio

Underage Drinking and Possession of Alcohol is always a popular charge in a college town. Bowling Green, Ohio is no exception. In fact, Underage Drinking is one of the most frequently heard cases in the Bowling Green Municipal Court.

If you or your son or daughter was charged in with Underage Drinking / Possession of Alcohol under Revised Code Section 4301.69E you may be surprised to know that you are facing the same maximum penalties that could be imposed for an Assault, Domestic Violence or DUI. Underage Drinking / Possession is actually a First Degree Misdemeanor, punishable up to a $1,000 fine and up to six months in the county jail.

If you are a first offender, you may be eligible to enter the court’s diversion program. However, if you are not a first offender, or are facing accompanying charges (such has public intoxication, littering, Fake ID, Public Urination, Obstructing, Open Container), you may not be eligible to enter the program at arraignment. Moreover, while diversion ultimately leads to dismissal, if you fail to complete the program requirements, you may face being sentenced as first degree misdemeanor offender.

If you do not qualify for diversion, your case is not hopeless. You may have a legal defense to the charge. Moreover, Attorney Schuman may be able to work with the prosecutor and court to put you through alternative programs and still obtain a dismissal. Such alternative programs may include counseling, recovery meetings and community service. Attorney Schuman is familiar with the various types of programs offered in the community and can help find the right options to satisfy the prosecutor and the court.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that even if the charge was dismissed, you must take the additional steps necessary to get the record sealed or expunged as soon as possible. We can help you with this as well.

Disorderly Conduct Public Intoxication Bowling Green, Ohio

Is it possible to get charged for walking while intoxicated? The answer is yes! And it happens all the time in Bowling Green, Ohio. While such charges may be justified in certain circumstances, the police often wrongfully issue charges in cases when a person is only intoxicated in a public place.

The Disorderly Conduct ordinance does not prohibit a person from merely being found in a heavily intoxicated state. See Committee Comment to R.C. 2917.11(B)(2); City of Westlake v. Majercak (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 2011), 2011 Ohio 2261; State v. Waters (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2009), 2009 Ohio 1338; State v. Graves (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 2007), 2007 Ohio 4904; State v. Parks (Ohio App. 2 Dist. 1990), 56 Ohio App. 3d 8. Rather, the DOC by Intoxication statute is aimed at individuals that while intoxicated, engage in some affirmative conduct that creates a significant possibility of them physically harming themselves. Id.

The law states: “[n]o person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall engage in conduct or create a condition which presents a risk of physical harm to himself . . . .” Revised Code §2901.01(A)(7) defines risk as a “significant possibility, as contrasted with a remote possibility, that a certain result may occur, or that certain  circumstances may exist.”  Further, the committee comments to R.C. 2917.11(B)(2), the state disorderly conduct-intoxication statute provides in pertinent part as follows:

Former law merely prohibited being found in a state of intoxication, whereas this section is aimed at particular conduct rather than at the condition. . . . It [becomes] . . . a violation if, [for example] when alone and drunk or under the influence of drugs, he attempts a tightrope act on a bridge parapet or curls up to sleep in a doorway in freezing weather.” (Emphasis added.)

In State v. Graves (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 2007), 2007 Ohio 4904, the Court found an officer did not even have probable cause to arrest an individual for DOC by Intoxication. The individual, Graves, was found alone, at 2:30 A.M., outside in a downtown area, in the cold, while highly intoxicated. The officer testified that Graves had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, his speech was slurred, his movements were slow and deliberate, and he was unsteady on his feet. The officer described his movements as “weeble wobble.” The Court correctly pointed out that the law does not prohibit merely being intoxicated in public. Id. at ¶21. The Court continued, “[t]he law focuses, not on the drunken state of the accused, but rather upon his conduct while drunk.” Id.  The Court found there were no allegations that Graves engaged in some dangerous activity that put him at a significant risk of harm. Id. at ¶24. The Court reasoned that the possibility of Graves falling down and hurting himself, or venturing out into the street, or passing out in the cold, etc., were too remote to fall within the intended meaning of the statute.  Id.

In State v. Waters (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2009), 2009 Ohio 1338, the Court found that an officer did not have probable cause to arrest a group of individuals for DOC by Intoxication. The defendants were found in an extremely intoxicated state. One of the defendants so intoxicated that when the officer asked if he was “OK,” the defendant began answer but started vomiting mid-sentence. The Court found that the statute was not intended to punish individuals for becoming extremely intoxicated, but rather required the individual to engage in some dangerous activity while intoxicated that created a significant possibility that the person would be physically harmed.

Accordingly, if you were merely walking home after leaving the bars (not found lying in the street; curled up in a corner in the freezing cold; attempting a tightrope act on a bridge parapet etc.). you may have a case! Please call Attorney Schuman today to discuss the particulars of your case.

Contact Us Today

(419) 352-9999
Free Consultation

Call (419)352-9999 or Tell us about your legal issue now:

8 + 5 =

Location

Tell us about your legal issue now:

7 + 14 =