Top U.S. Supreme Court Decisions that Effect Ohio DUI/OVI Law
The following landmark cases represent the most important Supreme Court decisions which have had the greatest impact on the practice of DUI/OVI Law. The full majority opinions, facts, and any dissenting opinions can be accessed by clicking on the citations next to the case name.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643
Landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court established the "Exclusionary Rule" by holding that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." LEGAL EFFECT: In a DUI case, the consequence for an officer seizing, stopping, detaining, or arresting a suspect without sufficient probable cause or at the very least reasonable suspicion of criminal activity would be that the all evidence obtained after that illegal stop or arrest including: observations of appearance and behavior, field sobriety
tests, breath test results, urine tests, etc. Another case relating to this is Wong Sun v. United States 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
HELD--The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest.
LEGAL EFFECT: An officer must have reasonable suspicion to stop your vehicle. This suspicion is obtained by taking all the surrounding circumstances such as time of day, experience, general observation, area of town, etc. More often than not, an officer will be able to find this suspicion if he has observed you long enough while driving. If you are pulled over without this suspicion, the stop is illegal. And any evidence found after that is subject to suppression.
Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535
Before this important case, our government believed a driver's license was "a privilege — not a right.” This led to very few effective opportunities for a driver who wanted to challenge a license suspension. This case changed that by recognizing that a license's "continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood". The Court recognized the importance of a driver’s license and stated that a license is “not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment". LEGAL EFFECT: If it was not for this case, it is doubtful that the Ohio BMV today would provide hearings to contest DUI license suspensions. On the contrary, your license would just be suspended without any effective means to challenge it.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420
At what point is an individual considered "in custody" for purposes of determining whether an officer is required to read someone there Miranda rights before any interrogation? Obviously, a DUI suspect is in custody when he has been stopped and detained on the side of the road, especially when he or she has been ordered to perform all the various field tests by the officer. The United States Supreme Court, unfortunately, has given relatively no guidance to the DUI / OVI situation: "Either a rule that Miranda applies to all traffic stops or a rule that a suspect need not be advised of his rights until he is formally placed under arrest would provide a clearer, more easily administered line. However, each of these two alternatives has drawbacks that make it unacceptable..." This is why it would be a good idea to ask the officer if you are under arrest. If he says no, ask to leave. If he says yes, then ensure you are read your rights and ask to speak to an attorney immediately.
Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538
LEGAL EFFECT: In Ohio, which punishes a first offense DUI/OVI with up to six months in jail, an individual charged with a DUI/OVI does not have a right to jury trial.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Requires the prosecution to produce, upon request, any evidence that is "material" to the issue of guilt. LEGAL EFFECT: Another great case would be Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) where the Court held that it is a violation of due process for the prosecution to destroy evidence "in bad faith" which although not "clearly exculpable" was nevertheless potentially useful.
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984)
This case was specific to DUI/OVI. Where a breath test is given, the sample is retained in a test chamber, analyzed, and purged out of the machine and into the air; all is lost. According to the Supreme Court, the destruction of this evidence in this manner was "not a calculated effort to circumvent the disclosure requirements established by Brady v. Maryland", and, more importantly, the defense failed to show that the breath sample would have had an "exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed. LEGAL EFFECT: These "other available means" referred to the right of a DUI arrestee giving a breath sample to request an additional blood sample at his expense — a right which the police rarely advise the arrestee he has.
Pennsylvania v. Muniz,496 U.S. 582 (1990)
Subsequent to his arrest, field sobriety tests were administered at the police station. Some of these included tests of mental keenness, such as "Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?". The Supreme Court held that this constituted testimonial response to custodial interrogation and, since a Miranda warning had not been given, was inadmissible in trial. The court distinguished between questioning to determine the manner of speech (slurred) and the content (what was said) — that is, what was said rather than how it was said. LEGAL EFFECT: The impact of this case was great on DUI cases. Applying Muniz, post-arrest questions like "What time is it?” and “Where are you?” field sobriety tests ("Stand at attention with your eyes closed and tell me when 30 seconds have passed") should be inadmissible without the officer specifically giving Miranda warnings to the arrestee.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36
In a prosecution of a man accused of stabbing another man who raped his wife, the prosecution played a tape recording of the wife describing the stabbing. The defendant objected on the grounds that he could not cross-examine the woman, but the trial judge found the tape recording to be "reliable" since it had been taped by the police and admitted it for the jury to hear. The Supreme Court held in a 9-0 opinion that this is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation ("in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him."). LEGAL EFFECT: This more recent decision is particularly important in DUI cases, where prosecutor’s judges have commonly permitted prosecutors to introduce police reports in lieu of the testimony of the police themselves. At trial, this type of evidence should never be allowed. If it is, preserve the issue for appeal; because your case will probably be overturned depending on the effect the evidence had in securing your conviction.
Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444
Do roadside sobriety checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment protection from being stopped/detained without probable cause that he may be engaged in illegal conduct? In this controversial case the Court maneuvered around the Constitution by considering this type of stop administrative rather than criminal: "No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it....the weight bearing on the other scale—the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints—is slight." LEGAL EFFECT: The court considers this type of stop is to keep drunk drivers off of the road and protect the public. Although it seems as if the purpose is to seek out drunk drivers and arrest them, a play on words protects this type of stop. So if you see a checkpoint, be prepared to stop and be subject to tests. The only way to challenge this type of stop is to ensure that the officers had a procedure or plan to follow while stopping the vehicles. However, if the procedure is followed, you can and probably will be arrested. Some states still abolish checkpoints.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
Historically, this is one of the most important criminal cases ever to be decided. This landmark case requires that any "custodial interrogation" (which means when you are arrested and then questioned by an officer) must be preceded by what we all know as “Miranda warnings". The right to remain silent, anything can and will be used against you in the court of law, you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. Failure to give these warnings will result in suppression of any statements made in response to such post-arrest questions. LEGAL EFFECT: In DUI cases, most questioning usually takes place during the field investigation — that is, non-custodial interrogation. However, police may also ask questions as they take you to the police station, as well as at the police station. At this point, you are now in custody and “Miranda Warnings” should have been given. It is important to ask the officer if you are free to go. Perhaps ask the officer if you are under arrest.
Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 510 U.S. 1009
Defendant was both tried for selling marijuana — and then charged civilly for a failure to pay a tax on that marijuana. The Supreme Court held that it was a violation of the Constitutional prohibition against Double Jeopardy: The fact that one proceeding was criminal and the other civil did not matter, the Court said, as long as they both involved the same offense and both were intended as punishment. LEGAL EFFECT: This case has repeatedly been cited in DUI cases as authority for the proposition that the State cannot both criminally prosecute for driving with over .08% blood alcohol and civilly suspend the individual's driver's license for the same offense. Although there have been federal court decisions taking this position, to date state courts have not accepted this reasoning and the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the issue in a drunk driving context.
Morissette v. United States,342 U.S. 246
Involving a theft where the intent to steal was legally presumed from the conduct of removing the property, this decision established that conclusive presumptions are a violation of the presumption of innocence and takes away from the jury the function of factually determining the elements of the offense. Presumptions pop up constantly in DUI cases today: defendants are presumed guilty if their blood-alcohol was over .08%; the blood-alcohol level at the time of testing is presumed to be the same at the time of driving if taken within three hours (despite scientific evidence and common sense to the contrary). In each situation, however, the presumption is rebuttable — that is, the jury can disregard it in view of other evidence. LEGAL EFFECT: Were it not for Morisette, the government would undoubtedly make these presumptions conclusive — that is, the jury must follow the legal presumption even if the evidence clearly contradicts it.
Old Chief v. United States,519 U.S. 172
Defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Fearful that evidence of the prior felony conviction would prejudice the jury on the present case, defendant offered to admit to the fact of the prior felony so that evidence of the nature or facts of the crime would not be necessary. The prosecution refused, saying that it could prove the prior conviction if it so chose, and offered the facts of the prior crime. Held: the judge abuses his discretion in permitting evidence of the prior conviction where the nature of the current criminal charge raises a risk of a verdict tainted by evidence of that conviction. LEGAL EFFECT: This is a critical issue in drunk driving cases where a defendant is accused of DUI with prior convictions: evidence of the priors ("If he did it once...") almost guarantees a conviction.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165
After being oSuspect swallowed drugs to get rid of evidence, whereupon police hit him and jumped on his stomach to make him throw up the drugs; at the hospital a physician forced an emetic through a tube into his stomach. Held, this conduct violated defendant's 14th Amendment right to Due Process. "Due Process" is a vague term, but it prohibited "conduct that shocks the conscience." LEGAL EFFECT: This is an important case in the drunk driving arena, as it is not uncommon practice for police to use violent means to obtain a blood sample from a resisting DUI arrestee.
Benton v. Maryland,395 U.S. 784
In this particular case the defendant was acquitted of larceny but convicted of burglary. After the appeal, which was won by the defendant, he was charged a second time with the burglary — and the larceny. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution applied barring the state from subjecting a citizen to repeated prosecutions for the same conduct. LEGAL EFFECT: It is common for drunk driving defendants to be charged with DUI/OVI, as well as driving with .08% blood-alcohol. This seems to raise similar issues under Benton's double jeopardy prohibition.
“This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.”
