Understanding the Immediate Aftermath of a DUI Arrest

Legal Rights During DUI Testing

Penalties for DUI in South Carolina

The DUI Legal Process in Greenville

Why You Need The Bateman Law Firm

Practical Steps Following a DUI Arrest

1. Contact an Attorney Immediately: Limit discussions with law enforcement and seek legal guidance to ensure rights are protected.
2. Document All Details: Record officer statements, testing procedures, and any observed irregularities for later reference.
3. Request Independent Testing if Possible: Obtaining independent analysis can provide valuable evidence for challenging the state’s tests.
4. Attend All Hearings and Court Dates: Missing scheduled appearances can lead to harsher penalties or default judgments.
5. Avoid Self-Incrimination: Limit admissions of alcohol consumption or behavior during the incident without legal counsel present.

Summer DUI Awareness in Greenville

Potential Defenses to DUI Charges

• Challenging the Traffic Stop: Arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to initiate the stop.
• Field Sobriety Test Accuracy: Questioning the validity of field sobriety tests due to environmental or physical factors.
• Chemical Test Reliability: Ensuring breathalyzer or blood tests were conducted properly and results are reliable.
• Administrative Procedural Errors: Identifying deviations from legal protocol during testing or booking that could affect admissibility. An experienced attorney from The Bateman Law Firm can assess these factors and tailor a defense to maximize your chances of a favorable outcome.

To learn more about this subject click here: Understanding Interstate DUI Laws: What You Need to Know

The post Arrested for DUI After a Summer Concert in Greenville? What Happens Next in South Carolina appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

Boating Season Brings More Patrols on Lakes Hartwell and Keowee

What South Carolina BUI Law Prohibits

Common Triggers for a BUI Stop on Lake Hartwell

Common Triggers for a BUI Stop on Lake Keowee

What Officers Look for After the Stop

BUI Testing and the 0.08 Inference

How a Defense Lawyer Reviews a BUI Stop

What to Do After a BUI Stop on Hartwell or Keowee

Talk With The Bateman Law Firm About a South Carolina BUI Charge

The post Boating Season in South Carolina: What Triggers a BUI Stop on Lakes Hartwell and Keowee appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

Why Late Spring on South Carolina Lakes Brings Increased BUI Enforcement

The Initial Stop and Observational Evidence

Field Sobriety Testing and Chemical Analysis

Evidence Collection and Case Building

• Written observations of behavior and boat operation
• Statements from passengers or nearby witnesses
• Photographic or video documentation of the stop and surrounding conditions
• Environmental details like time of day, water traffic, and weather conditions

Enforcement Tactics During Peak Times

Penalties and Legal Consequences

How Legal Counsel Can Make a Difference

• Review the officer’s observations and investigative methods
• Challenge the accuracy and administration of chemical tests
• Evaluate potential violations of constitutional rights during stops
• Negotiate reduced charges or alternative resolutions when appropriate

Best Practices for Boaters

• Designate a sober operator for every outing
• Avoid alcohol consumption before or during vessel operation
• Use alternative transportation to access the lake if consuming alcohol
• Ensure passengers understand boating laws and safety measures

Navigating a BUI Charge Successfully

The post Stopped After a Lake Day in May? How South Carolina Officers Build BUI Cases appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

What a DUI Arrest Entails in South Carolina

Professional Licensing Boards and Their Role

Nurses and DUI Arrests

Teachers and DUI Arrests

Real Estate Agents and DUI Arrests

How Licensing Boards Review DUI Cases

Practical Steps to Protect Your License

• Retain an experienced DUI defense attorney who understands both criminal law and professional licensing implications.
• Comply with all court, DMV, and legal requirements to avoid aggravating licensing consequences.
• Document rehabilitation efforts through counseling, treatment programs, and community service.
• Voluntarily disclose the DUI to licensing boards when required, showing transparency and responsibility.

The Role of The Bateman Law Firm

To learn more about this subject click here: Don’t be fooled…A DUI can be quite confusing!

The post Can a South Carolina DUI Arrest Affect Professional Licenses for Nurses, Teachers, and Real Estate Agents? appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

My clients seem to be unaware of the changes made about a year ago when a DUI suspect refuses a chemical test. Prior to May 2025, if a Tennessee officer had probable cause to believe a suspect was driving under the influence (first offense) and made a proper request for a sample of blood and/or breath, the suspect had two choices. One, consent to the request; or two, refuse and require the officer to obtain a search warrant. Refusing and failure of the officer to obtain a blood sample would result in the loss of the suspect’s Tennessee driver’s license for a period of one year—the same length of time as if the suspect was convicted of DUI.

As of May 5, 2025, however, several important changes were made in the law. The Tennessee Legislature amended Tennessee Code Annotated Section 55–10–407 to require a suspension of the suspect’s Tennessee driver’s license for a period of 18 months, six months more than if they are ultimately convicted of DUI. Moreover, if a blood sample is obtained through the use of a search warrant after the operator refused, the suspect’s driver’s license may still be suspended for 18 months. It is also important to recognize that the 18 months suspension for refusing may be in addition to the 12-month suspension upon conviction of DUI. Thus, the defendant could lose their driver’s license for a period of 2.5 years.

This code section was additionally amended to allow an oral fluid test to be administered in certain circumstances. These circumstances include, but are not limited to, the operator’s consent, a search warrant, or without the consent of the operator when exigent circumstances exist. Oral fluids (saliva), generally taken with a cotton swab from inside the mouth, maybe be used at the roadside to test for certain drugs. Most commonly, these drugs include marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamines, opioids, and benzodiazepines. If a positive result is obtained at the initial screening, the sample is forwarded to a laboratory for a more detailed analysis.

About the Author: Steven Oberman has been licensed in Tennessee since 1980, and successfully defended over 2,500 DUI defendants. Steve was the first lawyer in Tennessee to be Board Certified as a DUI Defense Specialist by the National College for DUI Defense, Inc. (NCDD). Among the many honors bestowed upon him, Steve has served as Dean of the NCDD and currently serves as chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers DUI Committee.

Steve is the author of DUI: The Crime & Consequences in Tennessee, updated annually since 1991 (Thomson-West), and co-author with Lawrence Taylor (1942 – 2023) of the national treatise, Drunk Driving Defense, 9^th edition (Wolters Kluwer/Aspen).  Steve has served as an adjunct professor at the University of Tennessee Law School since 1993 and has received a number of prestigious awards for his faculty contributions. 

He is a popular international speaker, having spoken at legal seminars in 30 states, the District of Columbia and 12 foreign countries.  After being named a Fulbright Scholar, Steve was honored to teach as a Visiting Professor at the University of Latvia Faculty of Law (Law School) in the capital city of Riga, Latvia for a semester during 2019.  In 2023, Steve accepted an offer to teach for a semester as a Visiting Professor at Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law in Budapest, Hungary. Steve was designated a Fulbright Scholar for a second time and taught American Criminal Law and American Trial Advocacy at The University of Ljubljana Faculty of Law in the capital city of Ljubljana, Slovenia for the 2024 spring semester. Since then, Steve taught American Trial Advocacy to Masters Students in Criminal and Criminal Procedure Law for the Winter Semester in 2025 at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Faculty of Law in Madrid, Spain and at The University of Gdańsk Faculty of Law in Poland during the winter semester of 2026. If you would like to contact the author, please visit his website at www.tndui.com. ︎

The post Refuse and Lose (Your License for 18 Months) appeared first on DUI News Blog.

Keep in mind that the State of Texas enforces some of the most severe DWI penalties in the nation. Therefore, if local law enforcement arrested you for driving while intoxicated in McKinney, Frisco, or the surrounding Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, you cannot afford to leave your future to chance. In light of these high stakes, you need aggressive, highly experienced representation immediately. This is necessary to protect your driver’s license, your career, and your freedom.

Why Choose a Board-Certified DWI Defense Attorney?

Ultimately, navigating the Collin County court system requires deep technical knowledge of blood tests, breathalyzers, and police protocols. Because of this complexity, hiring a recognized leader in Texas DWI defense is critical. Mimi Coffey brings decades of trial experience and sophisticated scientific knowledge to every case. Notably, she fights tirelessly to expose flaws in the prosecution’s evidence.

DWI Lawyers in Collin County

The post DWI Lawyers in Collin County, Texas appeared first on DUI News Blog.

In the 2000 case of State v. Moore, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded an officer could perform a warrantless search of a vehicle if the officer smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. The rationale was the odor provided the officer with probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime. With the legalization of recreational marijuana in Ohio, that rationale is no longer valid, according to a recent case decided by an Ohio appellate court.

Officer Searches Vehicle Based on Odor
The case is State v. Lewis. A police officer stopped Lewis after he failed to stop at a stop sign and failed to signal a turn. As the officer approached Lewis’s vehicle, the officer reportedly observed the odor of burnt marijuana coming from inside the vehicle. Lewis denied having anything illegal in the car but admitted he smoked marijuana in the vehicle earlier in the day.

The officer searched Lewis’s vehicle, without his consent, and seized a loaded firearm. Lewis was indicted for Carrying a Concealed Weapon, Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, and Having a Weapon While Under Disability.

Trial Court Suppresses Evidence
Lewis filed a motion to suppress evidence regarding the firearm, claiming the search was not justified. The trial judge held a hearing on the motion. The officer testified he wanted to see if Lewis was possibly under the influence. However, he did not administer field sobriety tests and did not charge Lewis with DUI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). The trial judge granted the motion to suppress, and the prosecution appealed to Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals.

Appellate Court Affirms
In the Court of Appeals, the prosecution argued the vehicle search was justified by the ‘Automobile Exception’. That exception to the search warrant requirement applies when an officer has probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of a crime. The prosecution asked the appellate court to follow precedent from State v. Moore, which held the odor of marijuana alone is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle.

The appellate court distinguished the holding in Moore from the facts in the current case. The Court observed possession of recreational marijuana was illegal at the time of Moore but had been legalized by the time of the current case. Referencing recent decisions from other Ohio appellate districts, the Court of Appeals concluded the odor of marijuana did not give the officer probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Therefore, the court held, the search of Lewis’s vehicle was improper.

Application to OVI Cases in Ohio
When an officer stops a vehicle and smells the odor of marijuana, the officer may use that observation to expand the scope of the stop for the purpose of conducting an OVI investigation. According to the rationale of Lewis, the odor by itself would not be a sufficient justification to further detain the driver for an OVI investigation. In fact, the Lewis opinion quoted the Fifth District case of State v. Duch for this proposition: “Therefore, the odor of burnt or raw marijuana alone, would not be sufficient to provide a reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the initial traffic stop in order to conduct field sobriety tests.”

About the Author: Shawn Dominy is the past President of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the state delegate to the National College for DUI Defense and a founding member of the national DUI Defense Lawyers Association.  He is rated “AV Preeminent” by Martindale Hubbel®, was named by SuperLawyers® as one of the top 50 lawyers in Columbus, Ohio, and is recognized in Best Lawyers In America®for DUI defense and criminal defense.

Shawn Dominy authored the Ohio DUI/OVI Guide, the Ohio Vehicular Homicide Guide, and the Ohio Vehicular Assault Guide. He also wrote a chapter of Defending DUI Vehicular Homicide Cases (2012, West/Aspatore) and contributed a section of Drunk Driving Defense, 9th Edition (2021, Walters Kluwer). His magazine articles have been featured in state and national publications, and he is a frequent speaker at seminars in which he teaches other lawyers about DUI/OVI, serious vehicular crimes, and trial skills.

Shawn Dominy can be reached through his law firm’s website: Dominy Law Firm.

The post Ohio Court Holds Odor of Marijuana Does not Justify Search of Vehicle appeared first on DUI News Blog.

Understanding a DUI Arrest in South Carolina

Immediate Steps After Arrest

Understanding Implied Consent and Chemical Testing

Administrative Steps and License Considerations

Documenting Evidence and Witnesses

Avoiding Social Media and Other Pitfalls

Role of Your Attorney in the First 72 Hours

Preparing for Court and Building a Defense

Long-Term Considerations

To learn more about this subject click here: Not All DUI Charges Are Misdemeanors. Here’s How a DUI Can Become a Felony

The post Memorial Day Weekend DUI Arrest in South Carolina: What to Do in the First 72 Hours appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

Understanding Minor in Possession (MIP) in South Carolina

Common Situations That Lead to MIP Charges at Graduation Parties

• Private gatherings where alcohol is readily accessible.
• Off-campus parties with minimal adult supervision.
• Teens transporting alcohol in cars, backpacks, or purses.
• Instances where older friends provide alcohol to minors. Law enforcement may monitor popular party locations or respond to noise complaints and tips during graduation season. Even if a minor does not consume alcohol, simple possession in these contexts can trigger an MIP charge.

Legal Penalties for Minors in Possession

• Fines ranging from $100 to $200 for first-time offenses.
• Mandatory completion of an alcohol education or community service program.
• Suspension of the minor’s driving privileges, sometimes for several months.
• A permanent criminal record that may impact college admissions, scholarships, or future employment opportunities. It is important to note that multiple offenses or aggravating circumstances, such as possession of alcohol in a vehicle, can increase the severity of these penalties.

Defenses and Legal Options for Minors Charged with MIP

• Lack of knowledge: Demonstrating that the minor was unaware that alcohol was present or in their possession.
• Improper search or seizure: Challenging evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights.
• Transportation exception: Arguing that the minor was transporting alcohol without intent to consume.
• Parental or guardian consent: In some limited contexts, supervision by a responsible adult may affect the case, although this is narrowly interpreted under South Carolina law. A skilled attorney can analyze the facts of each case, identify procedural errors, and work to reduce penalties or obtain alternative resolutions such as diversion programs.

Responsibilities of Hosts and Parents

• Clearly communicating to all attendees that underage drinking is prohibited.
• Monitoring parties actively to prevent alcohol misuse.
• Avoid providing alcohol to guests under 21.
• Ensuring safe transportation options for guests, especially if alcohol is present at the event. By taking these precautions, hosts can reduce the likelihood of minors facing legal charges and demonstrate responsible oversight.

The Role of DUI Lawyers in Protecting Minors’ Rights

• Detailed explanations of South Carolina MIP laws and penalties.
• Representation during court proceedings and negotiations with prosecutors.
• Assistance with diversion programs or alternative resolutions that may prevent a permanent record.
• Support in protecting driving privileges and mitigating collateral consequences that could impact education or employment. Having a knowledgeable attorney ensures that minors are informed of their rights and receive the strongest possible defense under the law.

Preventive Measures for Safe Graduation Celebrations

• Educate teens about South Carolina alcohol laws and consequences of MIP charges.
• Supervise gatherings where minors may be present.
• Provide alcohol-free alternatives and structured activities.
• Arrange safe transportation for all attendees, including rideshare or designated drivers.
• Communicate openly about expectations, responsibilities, and legal risks associated with underage drinking. By taking these precautions, graduation celebrations can remain memorable and safe without exposing minors to legal consequences.

Resources and Guidance from The Bateman Law Firm

• https://duigreenville.com/first-defense-dui-south-carolina/
• https://duigreenville.com/dui-in-greenville-standard-procedure/
• https://duigreenville.com/defenses-to-a-dui-charge/
• https://duigreenville.com/after-dui-arrest-in-greenville-sc/
• https://duigreenville.com/benefits-contacting-dui-lawyer/ These resources provide practical information to navigate the complexities of South Carolina law, helping families make informed decisions and protect the future of minors involved in MIP situations.

The post Can Graduation Parties Lead to Minor in Possession Charges in South Carolina? appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

Shelby County Tennessee, where the county seat is Memphis, has, as of March 23, 2026, begun implementing automatic expungements for cases that have been dismissed, or where the prosecution has been stopped (nolle prosequi).  If not automatically expunged, chargers may be expunged in other circumstances after a proper application has been filed with a court and approved by the judge. An example would be after a judicial diversion. However, keeping in mind the subject matter of this news blog, DUI (driving under the influence of an intoxicant) offenses are not eligible for a judicial diversion.

An expungement generally means that the public records that relate to one’s arrest are erased. This does not, however, erase law-enforcement records such as those maintained by the local law-enforcement agencies, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, or the non-public records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The statute relating to the expunction of criminal records may be found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40–32–106. It specifies the specific offenses that may and may not be expunged, and under what circumstances a criminal record may be expunged. For instance, some offenses may be expunged, even if not dismissed, after a certain period of time has elapsed. For more information click here.

There are some potential problems, however, with automatically expunging a criminal record. One such problem is that the defendant may not desire for the record to be expunged. Once expunged, a record cannot be again placed in the public records of the criminal justice system (electronically, or otherwise) . This could affect people who need to prove that a charge was, in fact, dismissed. For instance, when applying for certain jobs, a potential employer may find evidence on the Internet that an arrest occurred, but, if expunged, the defendant may not be later able to prove that the case was dismissed. Other issues exist for those who may need proof of the dismissal in order to complete certain immigration proceedings. Accordingly, before expunging any record, it is generally a good idea to first obtain a certified copy of the court judgment and keep it in a safe place.

About the Author: Steven Oberman has been licensed in Tennessee since 1980, and successfully defended over 2,500 DUI defendants. Steve was the first lawyer in Tennessee to be Board Certified as a DUI Defense Specialist by the National College for DUI Defense, Inc. (NCDD). Among the many honors bestowed upon him, Steve has served as Dean of the NCDD and currently serves as chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers DUI Committee.

Steve is the author of DUI: The Crime & Consequences in Tennessee, updated annually since 1991 (Thomson-West), and co-author with Lawrence Taylor (1942 – 2023) of the national treatise, Drunk Driving Defense, 9^th edition (Wolters Kluwer/Aspen). Steve has served as an adjunct professor at the University of Tennessee Law School since 1993 and has received a number of prestigious awards for his faculty contributions.

He is a popular international speaker, having spoken at legal seminars in 30 states, the District of Columbia and 12 foreign countries. After being named a Fulbright Scholar, Steve was honored to teach as a Visiting Professor at the University of Latvia Faculty of Law (Law School) in the capital city of Riga, Latvia for a semester during 2019. In 2023, Steve accepted an offer to teach for a semester as a Visiting Professor at Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law in Budapest, Hungary. Steve was designated a Fulbright Scholar for a second time and taught American Criminal Law and American Trial Advocacy at The University of Ljubljana Faculty of Law in the capital city of Ljubljana, Slovenia for the 2024 spring semester. Since then, Steve taught American Trial Advocacy to Masters Students in Criminal and Criminal Procedure Law for the Winter Semester in 2025 at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Faculty of Law in Madrid, Spain and at The University of Gdańsk Faculty of Law in Poland during the winter semester of 2026. If you would like to contact the author, please visit his website at www.tndui.com. ︎

The post Automatic Expungements in Shelby County, Tennessee appeared first on DUI News Blog.

How Dash Cams Strengthen Your Defense

Ring Cameras and Home Security Systems

Parking Lot and Business Surveillance Footage

Collecting and Preserving Video Evidence

Limitations of Video Evidence

Legal Considerations for Admissibility

Working with a Greenville DUI Attorney

To learn more about this subject click here: How a DUI Can Tank Your Credit

The post Can Dash Cam, Ring Camera, or Parking Lot Video Help Fight a Greenville DUI Charge? appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

Legal Definition and Standards of BUI

What to Expect During a Stop

Penalties Following a BUI Arrest

Impact on Boating and Driving Privileges

Evidence and Legal Defense Considerations

Preventive Measures for Boaters

The Role of The Bateman Law Firm

Springtime Enforcement Patterns

Additional Considerations for Commercial or Repeat Offenders

To learn more about this subject click here: What is BUI, and How Does It Differ from DUI in South Carolina?

The post South Carolina BUI Arrest This Spring: What Happens After a Lake Hartwell or Keowee Stop? appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

Understanding South Carolina and Federal DUI Penalties for CDL Drivers

Legal Protections and Your Rights After Arrest

Preparing for Employer Notification

Employer Actions and Compliance Considerations

Long-Term Career Implications for CDL Drivers

Strategic Legal Guidance

Preventive Measures and Ongoing Compliance

Summary of Key Actions

• Contact The Bateman Law Firm immediately to secure legal guidance.
• Document the arrest and all relevant interactions.
• Understand rights regarding chemical testing and police questioning.
• Prepare employer communications carefully, disclosing only required information.
• Seek legal strategies to challenge or mitigate the DUI impact.
• Complete any required programs or reporting to maintain compliance.

To learn more about this subject click here: What is a CDL DUI and how is it different from a regular DUI in South Carolina?

The post CDL Drivers Arrested for DUI in South Carolina: What to Do Before You Talk to Your Employer appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

Understanding Minor in Possession (MIP) Charges in South Carolina

Scholarship Implications

Campus Discipline and Housing Consequences

Legal Defenses and Mitigating Strategies

Practical Steps for Students

Long-Term Consequences of MIP Charges

Why Early Legal Help Matters

To learn more about this subject click here: Understanding South Carolina Minor Alcohol Possession Laws

The post Minor in Possession During Spring Semester: How a South Carolina Alcohol Charge Can Affect Scholarships and Campus Discipline appeared first on The Bateman Law Firm | Greenville DUI Defense Lawyer.

When a police officer makes a traffic stop and ultimately arrests the driver, there are separate seizures of the person for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Those seizures are the initial traffic stop, the continued detention of the driver, and the arrest. The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a decision in a case involving the continued detention of the driver.

Initial Seizure
The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That right is also protected by Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. Accordingly, searches and seizures must be conducted pursuant to a warrant or one of the narrowly-drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. The term ‘seizure’ applies to the seizure of property and the seizure of a person.

A traffic stop is a seizure. For a traffic stop, a warrant is not necessary if the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred or is occurring. A warrant is also unnecessary for a traffic stop if the officer’s observations reasonably lead the officer to suspect the driver’s behavior is a violation of the law.

Continued Seizure
After a valid traffic stop occurs, if the officer continues to detain the driver for an investigation unrelated to the initial stop, the continued detention must be separately justified. The continued detention is generally justified if the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

But what happens when the officer learns he was wrong about the reason for the traffic stop but continues the detention to investigate the driver? That question was answered in the recent case of State v. Fips.

Continued Seizure After Erroneous Stop
In Fips, two officers stopped the defendant’s vehicle for an inoperative headlight. The first officer talked with the driver and told him to “hang tight” while the officer checked his license. The second officer observed the headlight was actually working. The second officer informed the first officer the headlight was actually working. The second officer then seemed unsure about that.

The first officer ran the driver’s license and learned the driver had a suspended license and an arrest warrant. The first officer arrested the driver, searched the vehicle, and found crack cocaine. The driver was convicted for Drug Possession and ultimately appealed his conviction to the Ohio Supreme Court. The driver argued the continued detention for the officer to run the driver’s license was unconstitutional after the officer learned the headlight was not inoperable.

Ohio Supreme Court Decides the Issue
The Ohio Supreme Court concluded the continued detention was lawful. The Court cited the case of Rodriguez v. United States for the proposition that, after a valid traffic stop, an officer is entitled to complete the mission of the traffic stop, including checking the driver’s license. The Ohio Supreme Court opined that, in this case, the officer was justified in checking the driver’s license, even though the justification for the initial stop has been dispelled.

The Court’s application of Rodriguez seems a bit misplaced. At the time of the continued detention in Rodriguez, the justification for the initial stop was still valid. At the time of the continued detention in Fips, the justification for the initial stop was not still valid. It seems that, once the officer learned the initial stop was erroneous, the officer had no justification to further detain the driver for the purpose of checking the driver’ license.

How State v. Fips Applies to OVI Cases
Most DUI cases (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio) begin with a traffic stop. During the traffic stop, an officer may further detain the driver if the officer observes evidence which leads the officer to suspect the driver is under the influence. But what if the officer learns he was mistaken about the reason for the initial stop before obtaining the evidence of OVI? Based on the decision in Fips, it seems the Ohio Supreme Court may conclude the officer can continue with an OVI investigation despite learning the initial stop was erroneous.

About the Author: Shawn Dominy is a leading DUI/OVI lawyer in Ohio and the founder of the Dominy Law Firm in Columbus, Ohio. The Dominy Law Firm is recognized in Best Law Firms In America® for DUI defense and criminal defense and holds an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau.

Shawn Dominy is the past President of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the state delegate to the National College for DUI Defense and a founding member of the national DUI Defense Lawyers Association. He is rated “AV Preeminent” by Martindale Hubbel®, was named by SuperLawyers® as one of the top 50 lawyers in Columbus, Ohio, and is recognized in Best Lawyers In America®for DUI defense and criminal defense.

Shawn Dominy authored the Ohio DUI/OVI Guide, the Ohio Vehicular Homicide Guide, and the Ohio Vehicular Assault Guide. He also wrote a chapter of Defending DUI Vehicular Homicide Cases (2012, West/Aspatore) and contributed a section of Drunk Driving Defense, 9th Edition (2021, Walters Kluwer). His magazine articles have been featured in state and national publications, and he is a frequent speaker at seminars in which he teaches other lawyers about DUI/OVI, serious vehicular crimes, and trial skills.

Shawn Dominy can be reached through his law firm’s website: Dominy Law Firm.

The post Ohio Supreme Court: Continued Detention of Driver was Constitutional appeared first on DUI News Blog.

Whether it is too much pressure from their superiors to make arrests, or insufficient training, apparent wrongful DUI arrests are continuing in Tennessee and across the country. This situation has been reported in this forum, and continues to be reported in Tennessee.¹  Fortunately, a video recording of the alleged reasonable suspicion or probable cause that is legally necessary to stop a vehicle to investigate is helpful to the arresting officer, the driver suspected of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, and sometimes, both.

The accusations of an unjustified or illegal arrest only highlight the great difficulty an officer has in determining whether the driver has simply made a driving error, was distracted, was sleepy, or has actually impaired their central nervous system by ingesting or otherwise introducing an intoxicant into their body. Of the thousands of defendants that I have successfully represented, I can report, without hesitation, that there have been only a handful of officers who were either totally incompetent or who intentionally arrested a driver for this very serious crime.

Most officers attempt to follow the complicated protocol established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine whether or not an arrest for DUI/DWI/OUI is justified. One of the problems is that the protocol itself is flawed. It attempts to generalize certain behaviors to determine whether a suspect is safe to drive. Unfortunately, not all of us are able to successfully perform or exhibit the requested behaviors/symptoms to the officer’s satisfaction—even when sober.

Law-enforcement agencies and other “watchdog” groups justify the arrests that are unsupported by the chemical tests by claiming that it is better to falsely arrest someone than to take a chance on killing an innocent party. While their logic is understandable, it does not make it correct.

Once arrested for DUI, it is almost impossible to clear one’s name. And, that does not even count for the trauma of being handcuffed, transported to jail, and spending the night in a dirty, uncomfortable jail cell. Once out of jail, there is the expense of posting bail; legal representation and investigation; the anxiety of waiting months for the results of the chemical (blood, breath, and/or urine) tests; the time missed from work to go to court; the embarrassment of having others believe in one’s guilt; the increased financial expenses such as health and other insurance; explaining the situation to one’s family and children; and the list goes on.

Even after the case is dismissed, assuming that the applicable law allows for expungement (erasure from public record), it is never truly expunged. Law-enforcement agencies will always have a record of the arrest and subsequent dismissal, making it more likely that one would be arrested in the future. Furthermore, due to the omnipresent Internet, private companies that sell information to potential employers and other consumers do not expend much effort to erase reports of a charge that was subsequently dismissed—unless of course, they can make money doing so. Then, there are the scams that these companies implement by accepting a fee to erase the innocent driver’s arrest record from one website, only to publish it on a sister website with the hope of again being paid to erase it from the second website.

So, what is the answer to keep us safe on the roadways?  Better training is necessary to assist officers in using the current protocol to determine if a driver is under the influence; a new protocol should be developed to better allow for the variations in our physical differences and capabilities; and implementing technology to perform accurate roadside chemical tests.

1. See e.g., https://www.wvlt.tv/2026/04/15/knox-county-deputy-mistook-lysol-smell-alcohol-prompting-sober-dui-arrest-lawsuit-says/, (last visited Apr. 20, 2026).
   
   About the Author: Steven Oberman has been licensed in Tennessee since 1980, and successfully defended over 2,500 DUI defendants. Steve was the first lawyer in Tennessee to be Board Certified as a DUI Defense Specialist by the National College for DUI Defense, Inc. (NCDD). Among the many honors bestowed upon him, Steve has served as Dean of the NCDD and currently serves as chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers DUI Committee.
   
   Steve is the author of DUI: The Crime & Consequences in Tennessee, updated annually since 1991 (Thomson-West), and co-author with Lawrence Taylor (1942 – 2023) of the national treatise, Drunk Driving Defense, 9^th edition (Wolters Kluwer/Aspen).  Steve has served as an adjunct professor at the University of Tennessee Law School since 1993 and has received a number of prestigious awards for his faculty contributions. 
   
   He is a popular international speaker, having spoken at legal seminars in 30 states, the District of Columbia and 12 foreign countries.  After being named a Fulbright Scholar, Steve was honored to teach as a Visiting Professor at the University of Latvia Faculty of Law (Law School) in the capital city of Riga, Latvia for a semester during 2019.  In 2023, Steve accepted an offer to teach for a semester as a Visiting Professor at Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law in Budapest, Hungary. Steve was designated a Fulbright Scholar for a second time and taught American Criminal Law and American Trial Advocacy at The University of Ljubljana Faculty of Law in the capital city of Ljubljana, Slovenia for the 2024 spring semester. Since then, Steve taught American Trial Advocacy to Masters Students in Criminal and Criminal Procedure Law for the Winter Semester in 2025 at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Faculty of Law in Madrid, Spain and at The University of Gdańsk Faculty of Law in Poland during the winter semester of 2026. If you would like to contact the author, please visit his website at www.tndui.com. ︎

The post Wrongful DUI Arrests Continue appeared first on DUI News Blog.

In Ohio’s Lakota Local School District, there were two crashes involving students walking to and from school. One of the students, Aspen Runnels, died after being hit in a crosswalk in 2024. In response, two Ohio House Representatives introduced HB 203, titled ‘Aspen Runnels Law’. The Bill proposes to increase penalties for vehicular manslaughter and vehicular assault when a death or serious physical harm is the proximate result of speeding or committing a minor misdemeanor traffic offense in an active school zone.

Proposed Changes to Vehicular Manslaughter in Ohio
Vehicular Manslaughter is defined by Ohio Revised Code section 2903.06(A)(4). That statute currently prohibits causing the death of another person as a proximate result of committing a minor misdemeanor traffic violation. Vehicular Manslaughter is currently a second-degree misdemeanor and is punishable by a jail term of up to 90 days, a fine of up to $750, probation for up to five years, and a mandatory driver’s license suspension of three months to two years.

House Bill 203 proposes to add two additional ways a person can commit Vehicular Manslaughter: speeding or committing a minor misdemeanor traffic violation within an active school zone. A school zone is active when school zone speed limit signs are erected and children are arriving/leaving or are at recess.

This type of Vehicular Manslaughter would be a fourth-degree felony punishable by a prison term of up to 18 months, a fine of up to $5,000, probation for up to five years, and a mandatory driver’s license suspension of two years to ten years. In addition, a defendant would be required to complete a remedial driving course before reinstating their driver’s license.

Proposed Changes to Vehicular Assault in Ohio
Vehicular Assault is defined by Ohio Revised Code section 2903.08 and may be categorized as a felony or misdemeanor. The misdemeanor version is committed when a person causes serious physical harm to another person as a proximate result of committing a speeding offense in a construction zone. This type of Vehicular Assault is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by a mandatory jail term of seven days to 180 days, a fine of up to $1,000, probation for up to five years, and a mandatory driver’s license suspension of one year to five years.

House Bill 203 proposed to add two additional ways a person can commit Vehicular Assault: speeding or committing a minor misdemeanor traffic violation within an active school zone. This type of Vehicular Assault would be a fifth-degree felony punishable by a prison term of up to 12 months, a fine of up to $2,500, probation for up to five years, and a mandatory driver’ license suspension of one year to five years. In addition, a defendant would be required to complete a remedial driving course before reinstating their driver’s license.

The Status of House Bill 203
The Bill passed in the Ohio House of Representatives on March 25, 2026. It has been introduced in the Ohio Senate and will soon be the subject of testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

About the Author: Shawn Dominy is a leading DUI/OVI lawyer in Ohio and the founder of the Dominy Law Firm in Columbus, Ohio. The Dominy Law Firm is recognized in Best Law Firms In America® for DUI defense and criminal defense and holds an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau.

Shawn Dominy is the past President of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the state delegate to the National College for DUI Defense and a founding member of the national DUI Defense Lawyers Association. He is rated “AV Preeminent” by Martindale Hubbel®, was named by SuperLawyers® as one of the top 50 lawyers in Columbus, Ohio, and is recognized in Best Lawyers In America®for DUI defense and criminal defense.

Shawn Dominy authored the Ohio DUI/OVI Guide, the Ohio Vehicular Homicide Guide, and the Ohio Vehicular Assault Guide. He also wrote a chapter of Defending DUI Vehicular Homicide Cases (2012, West/Aspatore) and contributed a section of Drunk Driving Defense, 9th Edition (2021, Walters Kluwer). His magazine articles have been featured in state and national publications, and he is a frequent speaker at seminars in which he teaches other lawyers about DUI/OVI, serious vehicular crimes, and trial skills.

Shawn Dominy can be reached through his law firm’s website: Dominy Law Firm.

The post House Bill 203 Passes in Ohio House of Representatives appeared first on DUI News Blog.

Most people are unaware of the Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Provision in the Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act signed into law by President Joe Biden on November 15, 2021. This law requires a national safety standard for smart technology in new vehicles that would theoretically eliminate or at least, significantly decrease incidents of impaired driving. At the time this legislation was enacted, United States Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg estimated that the legislation would save 1,000 deaths and 25,000 in injuries caused by drunk driving each month. This does not include the cost of $58 billion per year to the U.S. economy.[1]

(A) monitors a driver’s performance to identify impairment of a driver;

(B) a system which passively detects a blood alcohol level equal to and exceeding .08 blood alcohol content; or

(C) a similar system which detects impairment and prevents or limits vehicle operation[3]

Practically speaking, this “passive” technology may include ignition analog devices (breath sensors that measure blood alcohol concentration before allowing the vehicle to start), but may also be very different from ignition interlock devices. For instance, these devices could prevent a vehicle from operating once the vehicle decides the driver is impaired. The technology could include options such as air monitors to sample the vehicle cabin air for traces of alcohol; skin sensors to measure the driver’s blood alcohol level when the steering wheel is touched by the driver; and even software and cameras to monitor and detect signs of impairment in vehicle movement. Some systems employ a driver facing camera to analyze the driver’s eye or head movements to determine if the driver can operate the vehicle safely.

Related to the “Halt Drunk Driving Act” is The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) Program that began in 2008. It is aimed at developing breath systems, touch systems, and other technology that can passively detect a driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and prevent the vehicle from moving if the BAC is at or above the legal limit. The DADSS Research Program is a partnership involving the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

            Opponents of this law cite concerns about vehicle and driver information being shared with third parties, unreliable technology, cybersecurity, increased vehicle costs, and dealing with false positives. For instance, a driver could swerve to avoid a deer on a rural road, only to then have their vehicle disabled.[4] Once the driver is locked out, or their car disabled, the law neglects to provide how vehicle can be reactivated. This is a major oversight. No breath test is readily available, nor can an officer reset the lockout. Without human intervention, the computer sits as judge and jury with no way to quickly resume one’s travel.

There is no question that driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs need to be further curbed. However, as with all technology, society must be extremely cautious not to allow computers to control our lives.

[1] See https://madd.org/press-release/10-things-to-know-about-the-drunk-driving-prevention-technology-provision-in-the-infrastructure-bill/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2026).

[2] H.R.2138 in the 117^th Congress (2021).

[3] H.R.2138 in the 117^th Congress (2021).

[4] See https://apnews.com/article/federal-law-impairment-detection-car-dui-062d40e885a0e32c6cad0ba70163aef8 (last visited Feb. 27, 2026); https://www.cbtnews.com/government-kill-switch-in-your-next-car/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2026).

About the Author: Steven Oberman has been licensed in Tennessee since 1980, and successfully defended over 2,500 DUI defendants. Steve was the first lawyer in Tennessee to be Board Certified as a DUI Defense Specialist by the National College for DUI Defense, Inc. (NCDD). Among the many honors bestowed upon him, Steve has served as Dean of the NCDD and currently serves as chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers DUI Committee.

He is the author of DUI: The Crime & Consequences in Tennessee, updated annually since 1991 (Thomson-West), and co-author with Lawrence Taylor (1942 – 2023) of the national treatise, Drunk Driving Defense, 9^th edition (Wolters Kluwer/Aspen). Steve has served as an adjunct professor at the University of Tennessee Law School since 1993 and has received a number of prestigious awards for his faculty contributions. He is a popular international speaker, having spoken at legal seminars in 30 states, the District of Columbia and 10 foreign countries. After being named a Fulbright Scholar, Steve was honored to teach as a Visiting Professor at the University of Latvia Faculty of Law (Law School) in the capital city of Riga, Latvia for a semester during 2019. In 2023, Steve accepted an offer to teach for a semester as a Visiting Professor at Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Law in Budapest, Hungary. Steve was designated a Fulbright Scholar for a second time and taught American Criminal Law and American Trial Advocacy at The University of Ljubljana Faculty of Law in the capital city of Ljubljana, Slovenia for the 2024 spring semester. Since then, Steve taught American Trial Advocacy to Masters Students in Criminal and Criminal Procedure Law for the Winter Semester in 2025 at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Faculty of Law in Madrid, Spain and at The University of Gdańsk Faculty of Law in Poland during the winter semester of 2026. If you would like to contact the author, please visit his website at www.tndui.com.

The post Should Computers Decide If You Are Driving While Impaired? appeared first on DUI News Blog.

An Ohio woman drove to the sheriff’s office about a personal matter but reportedly ended-up being arrested for OVI while she was there. Six days later, the same woman was stopped for disobeying a traffic control device and ultimately charged with a second OVI. Within four hours of being released for the second OVI, she was stopped again. This time she was charged with OVI and driving under suspension. What sentence is she now facing?

Ohio OVI Sentences
Ohio has mandatory minimum sentences for OVIs. For a first offense, there are three parts to the mandatory sentence. The first part is a fine, which is a minimum of $565 and a maximum of $1,075. The second part is a license suspension, which is a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years. The third part is a jail term, which is a minimum of three days and a maximum of six months. For the jail term, a judge can allow the defendant to attend a three-day driver intervention program instead of three days in jail. In addition to the mandatory parts of the sentence, a judge has the option of imposing additional sanctions such as probation (aka ‘community control’), substance abuse counseling, restricted (yellow) license plates, and an ignition interlock device.

Ohio’s mandatory OVI sentence increases with subsequent OVI convictions within ten years. For a second offense, the sentence includes a jail term of ten days to six months and a license suspension of one year to seven years. For a third offense, the jail term is 30 days to one year, and the license suspension is two years to 12 years. For a second or third offense, substance abuse counseling is mandatory, as are the restricted (yellow) plates and the ignition interlock device. In addition, the vehicle driven at the time of the offense is subject to immobilization or forfeiture.

What Sentence is this Ohio Woman Facing?
Interestingly, this Ohio woman is not facing the mandatory penalties of a third offense. In all three cases, the OVI charge will be treated as a first offense. That is because the possible penalties in Ohio Revised Code section 4511.19(G) are determined by the number of prior convictions within ten years. At the time she was arrested for the second and third OVIs, she had prior charges of OVI but did not have prior convictions for OVI. Therefore, she is facing three first-offense OVIs.

Although each OVI will be treated as a first offense, it is unlikely the judge will impose the minimum sentence in each case. The judge will take into consideration the fact the three OVIs occurred within a week and will almost certainly conclude the minimum sentence is not appropriate. The judge can impose up to six months in jail for each of the first two cases and up to one year in jail for the third case. The judge can order the jail terms to run consecutively, so the possible jail term is two years.

Although the cases will each be treated as a first offense, each convictions will enhance the sentence for subsequent OVI convictions. If she is found guilty in all three first-offense cases, she will have three separate OVI convictions. If she is charged with another OVI within ten years, she will be charged with a felony. A felony OVI is charged when a person has three OVI convictions within the last ten years or five OVI conviction within the past 20 years.

What About the Charge of Driving Under Suspension?
It is reported the woman refused to submit to a breath test in the first two cases. If so, she would have been subjected to an Administrative License Suspension. For the first refusal, the driver’s license suspension is one year. For the second refusal, the suspension is two years. When she was stopped for the third OVI, she was charged with Driving Under Suspension. For that charge, she is facing an additional jail term of up to six months.

About the Author:  Shawn Dominy is a leading OVI lawyer in Ohio and the founder of the Dominy Law Firm in Columbus, Ohio.  He can be reached through his law firm’s website:  Dominy Law Firm.

The post Ohio Woman Arrested for OVI Three Times in One Week appeared first on DUI News Blog.

The BMV 2255 is a form used by Ohio law enforcement officers when imposing an Administrative License Suspension in DUI cases (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). A sworn copy of the form is given to the arrested person, sent to the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), and sent to the court in which the OVI case is being heard. The BMV revised the Form 2255 in 2025, but some officers continue to use the outdated version of the form. That could lead to the ALS being terminated.

Ohio Implied Consent Law
Ohio Revised Code section 4511.191 provides that any person who operates a vehicle (or is in physical control of a vehicle) on property used by the public for vehicular travel is deemed to have given consent to alcohol/drug testing if arrested for OVI. If a person arrested for OVI refuses an alcohol/drug test or submits and tests ‘over the limit’, the person’s driver’s license or privilege to drive in Ohio is suspended.

This is called an Administrative License Suspension (ALS). The ALS is imposed by the BMV and is independent of the OVI case in court. However, a person subjected to an ALS can appeal the suspension in the court which hears the OVI case.

Due Process in Administrative License Suspensions
The ALS is unique because it takes a person’s property (their driver’s license) without first having a judicial hearing. The Ohio Supreme Court has held the ALS is Constitutional, but only if officers comply with the requirements of Ohio Revised Code section 4511.192 when imposing the suspension on behalf of the BMV.

Ohio Revised Code section 4511.192 contains several requirements. The officer must read specific warnings to the arrested person regarding the consequences of taking or refusing an alcohol/drug test. The officer’s reading of the form must be witnessed, and the form must be sworn. A copy of the sworn report must be sent to the BMV and the court within 48 hours and must also be given to the arrested person. The officer must notify the arrested person of the right to appeal the ALS.

Appealing an Administrative License Suspension
A person subjected to an ALS can appeal the suspension pursuant to Ohio Revised Code section 4511.197. At the ALS hearing, the BMV 2255 serves as prima facie evidence the officer complied with the requirements of Ohio Revised Code section 4511.192. However, the BMV 2255 cannot serve as prima facie evidence if the form itself is defective.

Using an Outdated BMV 2255
Some officers continue to use outdated BMV 2255 forms rather than the new form issued in 2025. At least one Ohio appellate court has ruled that, if an officer uses an outdated form, the prosecution must prove the outdated form is the same as the current version of the form. Prosecutors are unable to prove the outdated form is the same as the 2025 version because they are not the same.

In an Ohio OVI case, the defense lawyer should check to see if the officer used an outdated BMV 2255 form. If so, it is likely the form cannot serve as prima facie evidence, and that could lead to termination of the client’s ALS.

About the Author: Shawn Dominy is a leading OVI lawyer in Ohio and the founder of the Dominy Law Firm in Columbus, Ohio. He can be reached through his law firm’s website: Dominy Law Firm.

The post Ohio’s New BMV Form 2255 appeared first on DUI News Blog.

The NCDD website describes the award:

Erwin-Taylor Award

The post Lenny Stamm receives the Erwin-Taylor Award from the National College for DUI Defense appeared first on Maryland DUI Lawyer Blog.

The post Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College appeared first on Maryland DUI Lawyer Blog.