- July 15, 2016 |
- Category: DUI Testing
- Category: News
A South Carolina woman traveling through Chillicothe Ohio spent three days in jail after being falsely arrested for DUI by the Ohio State Highway Patrol. South Carolina citizen, Catrena Green, was traveling to Walmart at approximately 10:30 pm to get some food on a Sunday evening. Traveling in the opposite direction was an Ohio State Highway Trooper who saw that Green was violating an Ohio traffic law by failing to dim her high beams as she approached oncoming traffic. He soon pulled her over and asked her why she was driving with her high beams, but also stating that she hadn’t done anything else wrong. Green responded that it was dark, there were no streetlights and she was just trying to be careful.
During the traffic stop, the Ohio Trooper stated he didn’t smell alcohol or drugs and he didn’t see anything suspicious in Greens’ vehicle. However, because her pupils appeared restricted, the Ohio Trooper decided to elevate the routine traffic stop to a DUI investigation. Green denied drinking or using drugs and repeatedly said the only thing she consumed that evening was water, however, the Ohio Trooper began a series of field sobriety tests on the suspected DUI driver. He began with the horizontal-gaze nystagmus test (HGN test), which involves moving a stimulus from side to side while the suspected DUI driver follows it with her eyes. The purpose of the test is to check a person’s ability to follow directions and also detects whether nystagmus is present. Nystagmus is “an involuntary jerking of the eye” that is a common indicator of impairment. As the Ohio Trooper conducted the test, Green was unable to follow the pen with her eyes. After trying a second time with the same results, the Ohio Trooper confronted the suspected DUI driver saying “You’ve taken something else. I mean, you’re, you’re just completely dazed off there for a second.” Green explained that she was tired, and the Trooper said that she should still be able to perform the tests, even if she was tired.
The Ohio Trooper tried once more to administer the HGN test on the suspected drunk driver, but without success. As a result, he conceded that her eyes did not show nystagmus. The Ohio Trooper decided to move onto another DUI field sobriety test, the alphabet and numbers tests, which is a non-standard field sobriety test. The Trooper first instructed Green to recite the alphabet, beginning with the letter “L” and ending with the letter “S.” She did so without difficulty or showing any signs of impairment. The Ohio Trooper than instructed the DUI suspect to count backward from 57 to 42. She was able to do this as well, without showing any signs of impairment. The Trooper said that Green talked slowly and slurred her words, however, the Court that reviewed the video of the stop reported that the DUI suspect’s speech was neither slow nor slurred.
Despite a continued lack of evidence that the Ohio DUI suspect consumed alcohol or drugs, the State Highway Trooper decided to continue with more field sobriety testing. The next test was the one-leg-stand, which requires a person to stand on one leg while counting for approximately thirty seconds. This field sobriety test is known as a “divided attention skills test” because it shows whether the suspected DUI driver can maintain balance while following instructions. While the driver was able to count appropriately during the test, she was unable to maintain her balance. The final field sobriety test that the Ohio Trooper administered on the DUI suspect was the last of the three standardized field sobriety tests, the walk-and turn test. The Trooper described the sobriety test as follows: I instruct the Ohio DUI suspect to stand with her arms down to her side, place her left foot in front of her right, heel to toe, and to hold that position while I finish the instructions. I then advise the Ohio DUI suspect to walk an imaginary line, heel to toe, counting each step out loud. I told her to take nine steps down, turn around through the use of a number of small steps and then walk back in the same manner. Unfortunately, the video recording of the test does not show the Ohio DUI suspect’s full performance as it only showed the upper portion of her body. The court that reviewed the video stated that the DUI suspect swayed slightly and used her arms for balance during the test but it did not show anything else that would indicate impairment.
After the walk-and-turn test, the Ohio Trooper tried one last time to examine Green’s eyes using the HGN test. Again he was unsuccessful and there is no indication that nystagmus was present. As a final attempt to get some evidence that Green was guilty of an Ohio DUI/OVI, the Trooper confronted her by accusing her of using drugs. Again, she adamantly denied drug or alcohol use. The Ohio Trooper then arrested Green for drinking and driving or OVI. The Trooper called a number of his fellow officers to the scene to search the DUI suspect’s vehicle but found no evidence of alcohol or drugs. A K9 dog even circled the suspect’s SUV but did not alert to the presence of alcohol or drugs. After being arrested and taken to the Chillicothe Jail on an Ohio DUI charge, she submitted to a drug test that was sent to the lab for testing. When the test results came back, the DUI suspect was vindicated as there were no drugs or alcohol in her system. The case against her was dismissed. Unfortunately, Green ended up spending over two days in jail before being released.
So what does all this mean for drivers suspected of committing DUI/OVI in Ohio? It means that officers sometimes charge people with DUI when they’re innocent. It means that a charge of DUI does not necessarily equate to being guilty of DUI. There is no question that the Trooper acted within the law when he stopped Green for a traffic violation, even though the violation was a minor one. The question is whether he had enough evidence to elevate the routine traffic stop to a DUI investigation. Ohio law allows police officers to detain a suspect long enough to issue a traffic citation but no more in most circumstances. To detain a person longer in order to conduct an Ohio DUI investigation requires reasonable suspicion that the suspect has engaged in further criminal conduct like DUI. While the standard of reasonable suspicion is not as high as probable cause, it requires more than a “hunch.” It requires specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the continued detention of a motorist after a traffic stop.
No Ohio DUI arrest is perfect. Most DUI investigations include a number of witnesses, including police officers and the personnel who collect, store and test chemical samples. As this case clearly illustrates, these witnesses are human and they make mistakes. Further, most Ohio DUI investigations include a breath testing device or other testing equipment that is not always maintained according to current Ohio DUI regulations. There are over 1 million laws in the United States. I am a top Ohio DUI/OVI defense lawyer who devotes his practice to ONE. Because of my experience and concentrated focus, I know the Ohio DUI/OVI laws better than most attorneys in the state. I am passionate about Ohio DUI/OVI defense and I get results, however, I only accept a limited number of clients. If you’re serious about your case and want a top Ohio DUI/OVI lawyer on your team, call me.
