Proposed Ohio DUI Laws Would Address State Problems through Different Means

By:

Did you know that more than 33,000 people in the Buckeye State have five or more Ohio DUI offenses?

State legislators are certainly aware of these disturbing statistics, and despite their best efforts to bolster Ohio DUI laws, they have been unable to cut down on the level of drunk driving accidents over the years and reach an agreement on what to do next!

The Columbus Dispatch recently depicted the current divisive debate between the state Senate and House of Representatives on how to bolster the DUI laws in Ohio. While the Senate is pushing an Ohio DUI law that would prohibit repeat offenders from declining a blood alcohol content (BAC) test, the House of Representatives would like to nip the problem beginning with first-time offenders by requiring them to install alcohol ignition interlock devices in their vehicles.

Specifically, Senate Bill 17 would prohibit anyone with two or more Ohio DUI convictions in the previous six years from refusing a breathalyzer test. The story described the frustration shared by law enforcement officials, legislators and safety advocates who are all perplexed that a DUI suspect could use a breathalyzer refusal to possibly avoid a DUI conviction.

In fact, these frustrated parties feel like Ohio DUI attorneys frequently tell their clients to refuse breathalyzer tests and take the alternative penalties as stipulated in the laws for DUI in the state. It is illegal to be driving a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 percent under current Ohio DUI laws, which also stipulate that anyone who refuses a breathalyzer test will automatically have his or her driver's license suspended for one year. Frustrated prosecutors and law enforcement say this automatic driver's license suspension is absolutely meaningless to most repeat Ohio DUI offenders.

While law enforcement and prosecutors would like to see this proposed Ohio DUI law move forward, one criminal defense attorney in the story was not too excited about its prospects. Columbus criminal defense attorney Jon Saia equated this proposed Ohio DUI laws with the old Soviet Union in the story. Saia added that such an Ohio DUI law allowing police to make determinations based on such tactics would be ridiculous.

While the story certainly detailed Saia's opinions about his proposed Ohio DUI law, it did not reveal his comments about a DUI proposal from Senator Timothy J. Grendell. Under Grendell's proposed Ohio DUI law, repeat offenders would have to wear a "smart bracelet" that would monitor blood alcohol levels. The story added this proposed addition to current Ohio DUI laws would make it easier to prove criminal liability against those people who loan a car to someone else who is drunk and without a driver's license.

State House of Representatives Would Address Ohio DUI Laws Much Differently!

While the state Senate has target repeated DUI offenders in their proposed Ohio DUI laws, the House of Representatives is going after all offenders, beginning with first-time convicted drunk drivers in the state.

Representative Bill Seitz said that increasing DUI penalties for Ohio DUI suspects who refuse breath tests have proven to go nowhere in the past. Rather, he is crafting an Ohio DUI law which would require all Ohio DUI offenders, whether convicted of DUI once or numerous times, to install alcohol ignition interlock devices in their car.

Essentially, an ignition interlock systems requires convicted DUI offenders to blow into an installed breathalyzer in their car every time that they want to drive. If the ignition interlock device registers a certain BAC level, the car will not start.

While Seitz said he would base his proposed Ohio DUI law off a similar Nevada DUI law, Grendell disputed the effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in the story. He specifically said that ignition interlock systems can easily be circumvented by having someone else blow into the breathalyzer.

Despite Grendell's concerns, Seitz has had support for an ignition interlock device law. Local members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) said in the story that alcohol ignition interlock devices are the future in terms of making sure that first-time offenders do not get convicted of Ohio DUI law.

Seitz added that his DUI proposal will also include increased time periods for license suspensions but reduce jail time. Seitz call jail time an ineffective and expensive way to treat DUI in the state.

Ohio DUI Law Controversy Teaches an Important Lesson!

While Ohio legislators may not be on the same page in terms of what is the best way to go with the laws for DUI in the state, their attention to the situation reveals how lawmakers are constantly looking to curb drunk driving. Whether it be increasing DUI penalties, advocating alternative sentencing or doing something else, these concerted efforts further depict the importance of knowing the DUI laws in your state.


» Back to DUI Articles

PAID ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT: THIS WEB SITE IS A GROUP ADVERTISEMENT AND THE PARTICIPATING ATTORNEYS ARE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY PAY AN ADVERTISING FEE. It is not a lawyer referral service or prepaid legal services plan. Total DUI is not a law firm.  Your request for contact will be forwarded to the local lawyer who has paid to advertise in the ZIP code you provide. Total DUI does not endorse or recommend any lawyer or law firm who participates in the network nor does it analyze a person's legal situation when determining which participating lawyers receive a person's inquiry. It does not make any representation and has not made any judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating lawyer. The information contained herein is not legal advice. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Any information you submit to Total DUI does not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be protected by attorney-client privilege. Do not use the form to submit confidential, time-sensitive, or privileged information. All photos are of models and do not depict clients. All case evaluations are performed by participating attorneys. An attorney responsible for the content of this Site is Kevin W. Chern, Esq., licensed in Illinois with offices at 25 East Washington, Suite 400, Chicago, Illinois 60602. To see the attorney in your area who is responsible for this advertisement, please click here or call 866-200-8052.

FLORIDA ONLY: Total DUI is considered a lawyer referral service in the state of Florida under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. By all other standards, Total DUI is a group advertisement and not a lawyer referral service.

If you live in Mississippi, Missouri, New York or Wyoming, please click here for additional information.