Video Evidence - Motion to Dismiss?

[hypertrix]

Ohio - I was recently arrested for an OVI. I have hired a great attorney (from what everyone tells me) and today I met with him briefly and he let me watch the highway patrol officer's video of the night of the arrested. The video shows me getting pulled over, then the officer talking to me, me getting out of the car and then I walk with the officer towards the side of the officers car were the video of us is not visible. I then performed the field sobriety tests (only two of the three required) off to the side of the police officers car (the video does not show any of it). There is little audio of the field sobriety test which is distorted by the noise of cars driving by.

Since there is no video evidence of me performing the field sobriety tests, should we be filling a motion to suppress? If so, can the subsequent urine test be used as evidence?

I can't seem to find anything on this on the web. Any help would be appreciated. My attorney did not tell me anything..he was basically pushing me out the door and said he would call me.

 

[Zigner]

Ohio - I was recently arrested for an OVI. I have hired a great attorney (from what everyone tells me) and today I met with him briefly and he let me watch the highway patrol officer's video of the night of the arrested. The video shows me getting pulled over, then the officer talking to me, me getting out of the car and then I walk with the officer towards the side of the officers car were the video of us is not visible. I then performed the field sobriety tests (only two of the three required) off to the side of the police officers car (the video does not show any of it). There is little audio of the field sobriety test which is distorted by the noise of cars driving by.

Since there is no video evidence of me performing the field sobriety tests, should we be filling a motion to suppress? If so, can the subsequent urine test be used as evidence?

I can't seem to find anything on this on the web. Any help would be appreciated. My attorney did not tell me anything..he was basically pushing me out the door and said he would call me.

Please keep in mind that the testimony of the officer IS EVIDENCE, then rethink your question.

 

[CdwJava]

then performed the field sobriety tests (only two of the three required)

Who told you that three are "required?" While they are recommended as party of the test battery, no law makes the three "required."

Since there is no video evidence of me performing the field sobriety tests, should we be filling a motion to suppress? If so, can the subsequent urine test be used as evidence?

The fact that there is no video evidence of the FSTs will NOT get the case dismissed. The police have been successfully prosecuting DUI cases long before, and even since video has been invented. In CA we have very few cameras and we get DUI convictions every day.

Most DUI cases are won by beating the contact or the probable cause for the arrest. If there is no good reasonable suspicion for the contact, then there is no DUI. Unfortunately, it takes very little to justify a contact. After that, the arrest can sometimes be challenged if the grounds for the arrest are weak. But, this is rare.

And if it goes to trial, the state is usually the victor.

Listen to the attorney. If he does not see any grounds to suppress the video - and from what you have written there appears to be none - then you may have to pursue another angle.

Curious ... what was your BAC?

 

[hypertrix]

Thank you for the reply!

Thank you for your excellent input. Nobody formally told me that they had to perform all three, I guess I just assumed that they did. It sounds like I should not be as optimistic as I was after watching the video. Hopefully my attorney finds an angel and can get everything reduced. By the way, I submitted a urine test and it was .249 (over twice the legal limit), and they had me speeding going 60 in a 35. Its shameful actions and I guess I'll get what I deserve, I'm just hoping for some sort of reduction. If I am convicted I will possibly loose my job, and I just bought a house and have a wedding in a month so hopefully it doesn't come to that over one dui.

 

[davidmcbeth3]

Since there is no video evidence of me performing the field sobriety tests, should we be filling a motion to suppress? .

Why, do you think that there is a legal requirement TO videotape your sobriety test? I don't think there is ... so what does it matter if it gets admitted (as it has nothing on it really) ; although I would try to keep it out ~ less evidence then better.

Glug glug glug ... just screwed up my life ....

Glad you have an attny. Good luck.

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you for your excellent input. Nobody formally told me that they had to perform all three, I guess I just assumed that they did. It sounds like I should not be as optimistic as I was after watching the video. Hopefully my attorney finds an angel and can get everything reduced. By the way, I submitted a urine test and it was .249 (over twice the legal limit), and they had me speeding going 60 in a 35. Its shameful actions and I guess I'll get what I deserve, I'm just hoping for some sort of reduction. If I am convicted I will possibly loose my job, and I just bought a house and have a wedding in a month so hopefully it doesn't come to that over one dui.

Wow. Sounds as if it was not even close. Speeding will be good cause for the stop, and at .249 you likely exhibited many clues to justify further investigation. And, likely, the officer got sufficient observations of impairment with the two tests he performed and what he observed beforehand.

Sorry, but a plea is likely in your future ... and you are lucky no one was killed.

 

[ElvinMelvin]

By the way, I submitted a urine test and it was .249 (over twice the legal limit), and they had me speeding going 60 in a 35.

The 0.249 is going to be problematic, as it counts as a "high-tier" reading in Ohio. IMHO. it's less likely that the DA will let you plea down to a "wet reckless" (which is available in Ohio) as your BAC was so high, but your lawyer may be able to argue it depending on his relationship with the DA.

As it is, with a high-tier BAC, you are looking at a minimum of 6 days in jail (or 3 days in jail and 3 days in a driver intervention program).

Best thing to do is listen to your lawyer.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Thank you for your excellent input. Nobody formally told me that they had to perform all three, I guess I just assumed that they did. It sounds like I should not be as optimistic as I was after watching the video. Hopefully my attorney finds an angel and can get everything reduced. By the way, I submitted a urine test and it was .249 (over twice the legal limit), and they had me speeding going 60 in a 35. Its shameful actions and I guess I'll get what I deserve, I'm just hoping for some sort of reduction. If I am convicted I will possibly loose my job, and I just bought a house and have a wedding in a month so hopefully it doesn't come to that over one dui.

Just to clear something up, .249 is over three times the legal limit, being that the per se limit for DUI is .08. You were absolutely drunk out of your mind. You should be thankful that the officers got you off the road before you killed anyone else. It is unfortunate that you had this lapse in judgement that will cost you your job, right after you bought a house, and a month before your wedding. You should just be thankful that you didn't hurt anyone else with your one DUI.

 

[hypertrix]

Well thanks for all of the input. There's really nothing left to do now but to sit and wait to see what my lawyers can do for me. I went ahead and hired a prosecutor from another township as well so hopefully the two lawyers can get me a decent plea.

As far as the BAC goes... I took a urine test and the state limit is .11 so my .249 over twice the legal limit not three times...not that it makes much of a difference though.

 

[Indiana Filer]

As far as the BAC goes... I took a urine test and the state limit is .11 so my .249 over twice the legal limit not three times...not that it makes much of a difference though.

You might want to check on that. The per se level, which is the level at which you are assumed to be too intoxicated to drive, is 0.08. The enhanced level BAC is 0.17.

 

[CdwJava]

You might want to check on that. The per se level, which is the level at which you are assumed to be too intoxicated to drive, is 0.08. The enhanced level BAC is 0.17.

Actually, per ORC 4511.19 the way they measure urine, it IS .11.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.19

"(e) The person has a concentration of eleven-hundredths of one gram or more but less than two hundred thirty-eight-thousandths of one gram by weight of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of the person’s urine."​

 

[Indiana Filer]

Actually, per ORC 4511.19 the way they measure urine, it IS .11.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.19

"(e) The person has a concentration of eleven-hundredths of one gram or more but less than two hundred thirty-eight-thousandths of one gram by weight of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of the person’s urine."​

Oops. I missed that he said it was a UDS.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Well thanks for all of the input. There's really nothing left to do now but to sit and wait to see what my lawyers can do for me. I went ahead and hired a prosecutor from another township as well so hopefully the two lawyers can get me a decent plea.

As far as the BAC goes... I took a urine test and the state limit is .11 so my .249 over twice the legal limit not three times...not that it makes much of a difference though.

My fault, I was thinking BAC. Doesn't change the fact that you are in a world of trouble and this will cost you a truckload of money whether you win or not.