DUIOHIO successfully represented Major League Baseball player charged with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol, following a two-car collision. At trial, ZLM  offered testimony of paramedic thaat examined Client following accident and, during cross-examination of arresting officer, established that officer was studying his National Highway Traffic Safety Administration handbook to prepare his testimony in front of the jury during trial and prior to his testimony. Client found NOT GUILTY following jury triall.

DUIOHIO client charged with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol and Operating a Vehicle With a Prohibited Breath-Alcohol Content found NOT GUILTY of both charges following jury trial.

DUIOHIO Client charged with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol, found NOT GUILTY following jury trial. During cross-examination of arresting officer, arresting officer refused to admit that blood-shot eyes can be caused by things other than alcohol consumption, including lack of sleep or cigarette smoke.

DUIOHIO successfully persuaded a jury to find Client NOT GUILTY of an OVI offense and for failing to stop after an accident. Client was one of four individuals in a vehicle that became disabled after striking a tree. All of the occupants of the vehicle had been drinking and fled on foot from the scene of the crash before the police responded to the scene.  Three occupants of the vehicle who were close friends with each other advised the police that ZLM’s Client had been the individual operating the motor vehicle at the time of the crash.  Based solely on the allegations of the other individuals in the vehicle, the police located the Accused, arrested him, and charged with said offenses.

DUIOHIO Client charged with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol and Operating a Vehicle With a Prohibited Breath-Alcohol Concentration (over .17). During Administrative License Suspension appeal hearing, arresting officer admits Client passed the One Leg Stand and Walk and Turn field sobriety tests, and ZLM establishes that officer did not perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test properly, and that Client did not admit to consumption of alcohol until after Client was arrested and in the patrol car. During subsequent suppression hearing, officer changed his testimony by testifying that Client admitted to consumption of alcohol prior to his arrest. ZLM won suppression hearing, with Court finding no probable cause to arrest, resulting in prosecutor DISMISSING both OVI charges.

DUIOHIO won a suppression hearing and obtained a dismissal of Client’s OVI charges. Client, a licensed pharmacist, was arrested for an OVI offense after leaving a concert.  The arresting officer alleged that the client failed field sobriety tests and produced a breath test result of .105. The Court agreed with ZLM that the officer did not administer the standardized field sobriety tests in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards and that law enforcement did not substantially comply with Ohio Department of Health instrument check procedures relative to the breath test machine.

DUIOHIO won a suppression hearing and obtained a DISMISSAL of Client’s OVI charges. Client was charged with a third offense OVI charge and was facing the possibility of being sentenced between a mandatory minimum of sixty (60) consecutive days in jail and up to one (1) year in jail.  State Trooper alleged that he observed Client commit a speeding violation after observing Client pull out of a Taco Bell drive-through. State Trooper further alleged that he detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the Client’s person and that Client failed all of the field sobriety tests. Based on the testimony from the Trooper elicited by ZLM on cross-examination, the Court found that the Trooper did not administer the field sobriety tests in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards.

DUIOHIO won suppression hearing and obtained an Order from the Court suppressing client’s field sobriety test results and high-tier breath test result (greater than .17). The Court agreed with ZLM that the officer did not administer the standardized field sobriety tests in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards and that the prosecutor failed to show that the police department maintained its breath test machine in compliance with the Ohio Department of Health and Ohio Administrative Code requirements.

Following a two-car collision in a parking lot, law enforcement officers request woman operator of other car and Client’s wife to come to police station to fill out accident report. While at police station, other operator of vehicle alleged that Client was operating the other car and believed that he was under the influence of alcohol. Client’s wife was instructed to have her husband come to the police station, where he was subsequently arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. ZLM filed a Motion to Suppress, asserting in part that law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest Client. ZLM attorneys convinced prosecuting attorney to dismiss the charges against Client. When prosecutor subsequently charged Client with Hit-Skip violation based on same incident, ZLM filed a Motion to Dismiss based on speedy trial grounds. Court agreed, and granted ZLM’s Motion to Dismiss.

DUIOHIO Client and Client’s wife were driving home from a night out, but, unfortunately, were stopped at a OVI check-point. While at the check-point, officer detected an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle, and asked Client to blow into a portable, non-evidential breath-testing device. Officer alleged that Client purposely attempted to avoid a positive reading by not properly blowing into the device, and diverted Client’s vehicle to a staging area for further investigation. At the staging area, Client ordered to exit his vehicle and requested to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. After complying, Client arrested for OVI and asked to submit to breath-test, resulting in Client testing over the legal limit of .08. ZLM filed a Motion to Suppress, challenging, among other things, the constitutionality of the OVI check-point, as well as the detention and seizure of Client without reasonable suspicion. Following suppression hearing, Court agrees with ZLM that officer did not have reasonable suspicion to continue the detention of Client by diverting his vehicle to the staging area. As a result, Court granted Motion to Suppress, resulting in DISMISSAL of all charges.