Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 
Breath-Alcohol Tests Now Mandatory for Ohio Repeat Offenders
October 1, 2008

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Ohio drivers with a record of previous DUI offenses will now be required to take a breath-alcohol test when stopped for suspicion of driving while drunk, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Sept. 30.

Legislation was introduced in part as a response to the deaths in 2005 of two college students whose car was struck by an 11-time convicted drunk driver. Before the law was enacted, repeat offenders had the right to refuse to take a breath test.

The new law mandates that repeat drunken drivers with a previous felony and either two DUI convictions in the previous six years or five DUI convictions in the last 20 years must take the breath-alcohol test when ordered by police. Drivers with one or two offenses still have the right to refuse to be tested.

"Driving is a privilege, not a right," said Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh. "There is no good reason to make this test optional."

A website with the names and photos of offenders with at least five previous convictions will also be established under the new law; the legislation also calls for use of monitoring devices and impoundment of vehicles for repeat offenders.

The Ohio Department of Public Safety estimates that there are more than 33,000 drivers with five or more DUI convictions in Ohio.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by John French on 02 Oct 08 09:49 AM EDT
And furthermore... The guy who has 11 convictions should not be on the road. He should be in prison. This case illustrates the absurdity of laws which imprison some folks simply for possessing some drugs, but allow others to repeatedly endanger the public through their drunken behavior. We should be addressing dangerous behavior, not possession or use, and we should be dealing with it forcefully.

Posted by John French on 02 Oct 08 09:43 AM EDT
Both the article and JTO's summary are mute on what happens to the driver who refuses. In New Jersey, refusing to take a test itself carries a per se conviction and penalties equal to "failing" the test, whether it is the first or subsequent event. To me, this is the only way to handle it. I can picture the Ohio cops trying to force a breathalyzer tube into the mouth of a drunk who ignores their law that he "must" take it. Absurd.

Posted by NJ EAP on 02 Oct 08 09:30 AM EDT
Does this mean that as long as you don't have a "previous felony conviction" that you can have unlimited DUI's? That is rediculous and unless a DUI is considered a felony in Ohio, is worthless legislation and an insult to anyone ever affected by a drunk driver.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (read guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 200
words)
Enter this word
(help):		 Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for all, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, and on-topic. Comments are meant for thoughtful discussion of the article published above.

  2. Do not post promotional links to organizations, products or services, or personal requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercially-motivated posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments not conforming to these guidelines. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.