• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Guilty until proven innocent

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

asiny

Senior Member
You are not guilty of anything, walking home and not operating a vehicle, whether under the influence of alcohol or not, does not make you guilty of violating any statute, nor doe sit justify you being faced with charges. Unfortunately, in your age bracket, the legal system takes in guys your age as their prey...it is a money-making scheme for them, and they love to intimidate. Yes, it sounds sick, but that is what the system has become. Do not try to represent yourself in court because the prosecutors are a ruthless group. Get a lawyer and do not cave in to the, hold your ground, and with a lawyer you wil win this "case" and the charges will be dropped. Do not let yourself become yet another helpess victim in the 19 to 24 year-old age bracket. Think on your feet, get smart, and let justice be served. You are not guilty of anything.
Which part of the statute did you read? And, just in case you never read it;
p.s. - I highlighted the parts that apply to the OP based on their postings.
648.04 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to another, by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway or right of way, or to, from, within or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.
(b) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated shall do either of the following:

(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others;

(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.
(c) Violation of any statute or ordinance of which an element is operating a motor vehicle, locomotive, watercraft, aircraft or other vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, is not a violation of subsection (b) hereof.
(d) If a person appears to an ordinary observer to be intoxicated, it is probable cause to believe that person is voluntarily intoxicated for purposes of subsection (b) hereof.

(e) (1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disorderly conduct.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (e)(3), disorderly conduct is a minor misdemeanor.

(3) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree if any of the following applies:

A. The offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist.

B. The offense is committed in the vicinity of a school or in a school safety zone.

C. The offense is committed in the presence of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person who is engaged in the person’s duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot or emergency of any kind.
And in addition, Google search for;
CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS v KIM BROWN
CITY OF MIDDLETOWN v LADAWNYA CARPENTER
 


AAF

Junior Member
(Highway Man.....my options were traffic or criminal DUI....actually I don't think it fits into either. Why be some smug?)

I know I am not guilty, but I have talked to three attorneys and each has told me that University Heights police have a "deal" with Shaker Heights Municpal court to be tough on John Carroll students and really put the screws to them. ...even in the diversion program.

Personally, I am shocked that this is classified as an M2 in University Heights, but Shaker Municipal court chooses to classify it as an M1...while the state of Ohio classifies it as a MM.

I have also been told that the judge will find the police officer credible...even though he has no proof to provide, other than his word. Therefore, violating the law that I am innocent until PROVEN guilty. Someone's subjective opinion is not proof, and the smell of alcoholic beverage is not proof that I was intoxicated, by definition.
Where I was once comfortable believing that all I needed to do was to tell the truth and all will be fine....I am now uncomfortable realizing that the truth is not sufficient.
Very disappointing to know.
 

AAF

Junior Member
asiny:
You are correct on some and incorrect on others, regarding what applies to me:

The following is all I have been charged with:
(b) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated shall do either of the following:
(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.
(they said I might step off the sidewalk into traffic)

I find what you sited as very interesting:
2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (e)(3), disorderly conduct is a minor misdemeanor.
Shaker Heights classifies it as a 1st degree misdemeanor.

(3) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree if any of the following applies: (non of the following applied, in my case)

A. The offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist.

B. The offense is committed in the vicinity of a school or in a school safety zone.

SO.. I ask all of you, why and how can the exact same act be classified in the state of Ohio as an MM, then range in municipalities from M4 - M1?
Possession of a small amount of drugs is less than an M1.

The bottom line**************I was not intoxicated. I was walking home (alone). I was not disturbing anyone or anything. Just walking. Now I am being charged with a CRIMINAL offense of an M1? It just doesn't make any sense.

If some of you can tell me how this is right, I am all ears. But, as I stand, I am beginning to believe that none of this is about what is right or wrong, and it is ALL about money....and getting at the college kids.
 

HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
(Highway Man.....my options were traffic or criminal DUI....actually I don't think it fits into either. Why be some smug?)
You had a few options which were all more appropriate then the one you chose and none of which fall under traffic law.
 

AAF

Junior Member
You got me.....because I chose (in your opinion) the incorrect forum, well then I MUST be still drunk!

I am seeking advice....not asking to be subjected to irrelevant criticism and sarcastic dialogue.

Thank you for pointing out some very important points.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top