People ask us all the time whether they should talk to the cops.  Think you can talk yourself out of a ticket, ovi, or a domestic violence? This is an interesting 4 part video of a law professor’s lecture.  He is pretty entertaining and the information can be useful to many. The second video deals with trying to talk yourself out of a ticket, ovi, dui, as well as hitting on many interrogation tricks that police use to solicit incriminating information.

I have noticed several users searching for a felony and misdemeanor maximum penalty chart.  I have responded by posting the easy to read chart below ….. <drumroll>

MISDEMEANORS

It happens all the time. A client will walk into my office to discuss a criminal matter and even before I can start the preliminary questioning about the situation, the client exasperatedly proclaims, “the police did not read me my rights.” Usually, the client believes that this is a case-winning fact and one that I ought to care much about. However, the truth of the matter is that the police do not have to read the widely-known “Miranda rights” to each and every person they arrest. And even if they do violate the person’s 5th Amendment rights, this may not have any impact on the ultimate outcome of the case.  

The reason is that under current constitutional law, the police only have to read the Miranda rights when they are conducting “custodial interrogation” of the suspect. That is, if the police do not attempt to question the person about a crime, they do not have to advise the person that they have the right to remain silent, to an attorney, and so on. Simply asking an arrestee his name and where he lives would not qualify as “interrogation.” The police must be attempting to elicit inculpatory information from the suspect about a possible crime in order for it to be said the suspect was “interrogated”.

In short, it is only when two distinct criteria are met that the Miranda requirement is triggered: (1) the suspect must be in “custody” (a very fact specific inquiry) and the (2) the police must attempt to question the suspect about a crime they are investigating. If neither of these are satisfied, there is no Miranda violation. For instance, if an arrestee volunteers statements to the police, sometimes done as a last ditch effort to avoid arrest, the police and prosecutor are completely free to use those statements at a later trial, even when the defendant is never Mirandized. Because the police did not interrogate the suspect, but merely listened to what the suspect had to say on his own, one of the two necessary criteria discussed above are absent. Lesson to take from this: it is almost always true that talking to the police is a bad idea.

Furthermore, it is not that uncommon for the police to feel that they have no need to immediately question the suspect due to the fact he or she believes they have all the evidence they need in order to sustain an arrest (and ultimately, a conviction). Perhaps the officer witnessed the crime first-hand, or there are numerous witnesses at the scene who immediately point the finger at the arrestee. In either case, the officer may have no need to question the defendant and, therefore, no need to read the Miranda warnings at all. The bottom line is that not every person arrested has a constitutional right to have the Miranda warnings read to them, but rather only when they are subjected to custodial interrogation.

But this is not the end of the story. Let’s assume that the police in fact engaged in custodial interrogation and failed to properly Mirandize the suspect. This constitutional violation may not have any practical impact on the resolution of the defendant’s case. The remedy available for such a violation is not that the case is dismissed (as many people incorrectly believe), but rather that the statements obtained as a result of the violation will be excluded from trial. If the state has ample other evidence to sustain a conviction, the exclusion of these inculpatory statements will not make much of a dent in the overall strength of the state’s case. The state may not care that these statements are inadmissible given all of the other evidence it can still put before a jury. And this can obviously impact plea bargaining leverage as well. Now, of course, if the state’s case is weak and the statements are really needed in order for it to carry its burden at trial, then the police misconduct ends up being a huge chip that the defense can use during plea negotiations. And in rare cases, if the state’s case is so weak that without the use of the defendant’s statements it can not make out a prima facie case, the case may be dismissed upon motion.

So the next time you here someone complain that they were not “read their rights,” do not get the impression that they are out of the woods.

Here is an easy to read chart answering a question that is asked weekly by many callers. When can I have my record sealed?  If you are looking for information on ILC or diversion click here.

Brought to you by the Ohio law offices of Morrison & Nicholson. Call today for a free consultation about sealing or the expungement of your records at (937) 433–9775.

Ohio drunk driving cases are referred to as Ohio OVI (operating a vehicle while intoxicated), Ohio DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol), or Ohio OMVI (operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, impaired, or intoxicated). All of these acronyms relate to the same offense, found in the Ohio Revised Code.

Most people think that when someone is indicted in Ohio for a felony that there are only two possible resolutions: (1) The person will plead or be found guilty, or (2) the person will be acquitted of the charges. That is not entirely true. Ohio has a couple of alternatives that an attorney could pursue on behalf of a felony criminal defendant. First, the attorney could file a motion for Intervention in Lieu of Conviction (“ILC”). In short, ILC basically allows a person who committed a crime due to their addiction to drugs or alcohol to receive treatment for their substance abuse problems instead of a conviction and prison time. But, ILC is not available for all felony defendants and a given defendant must first be found to qualify for ILC. Ask your attorney whether you qualify (ILC is not available for certain crimes and certain offenders). If the Court accepts the ILC it will then prescribe a particular treatment program for the defendant and suspend the pending criminal action. If the defendant does what the Court demands as far as the treatment goes, the Court will dismiss the charges and the defendant can avoid a felony conviction altogether.

The second possibility is something called “Diversion.” Diversion is similar to ILC in that if the defendant is accepted for diversion and completes the program, then ultimately he or she avoids being convicted of a felony. The defendant is “diverted” out of the criminal court system and given a chance to accomplish certain goals set by the program. If the defendant successfully completes the diversion program, then the Court will dismiss the charges. However, like ILC, only certain charges and certain types of criminal defendants are eligible for a diversion program.

People who have been caught “red-handed” in the commission of a felony in Ohio often just want to get the entire thing over and do not want to hire an attorney, believing that because they are so obviously guilty, there is nothing to do but plead guilty or no contest. This is a major mistake.

Attorneys provide value to all criminal defendants, even those that feel there is no point in fighting anything. Because prosecutors know that the average layman will not go to trial and make the prosecutor actually work to prove the defendants guilt, the prosecutors will not offer any reduction in charges (or drop some of the charges altogether), nor will they agree to stipulate to a certain sentence in exchange for pleading guilty. In other words, prosecutor have no incentive to enter into plea bargain discussions with a layman. An attorney on the other hand can threaten trial, which in practical terms, means A LOT OF WORK for the prosecutor and this provides a strong incentive for the prosecutor to work with the defense counsel in reaching some agreement that is much more beneficial for the defendant.

Furthermore, without benefit of counsel, defendants that are eligible for Diversion or “intervention in lieu of conviction” programs will not file the appropriate motions and therefore, these defendants are never considered for these programs. These programs are the best result that a criminal defendant can have short of an acquittal, because if accepted to either one, a defendant can avoid a conviction and criminal record.

The bottom line is that if you have been charged with a felony in Ohio, you need to retain counsel, or ask the court to appoint you counsel because the results are almost guaranteed to be better than if you merely plead guilty. Even if you are obviously guilty, there are benefits to having representation.

Below is a list of penalties for an OVI or Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated,  also known as a DUI or DWI.  If you have recently been charged with an OVI/DWI/DUI and desire the assistance of an attorney please call the law offices of Morrison & Nicholson at (937) 432-9775 or visit our free online consultation page.

________________________________________

Administrative License Suspension (ALS)
• If you are stopped for drunk driving and you refuse to take the sobriety test, or if your test results exceed the legal limit of Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC),
the officer can take your driver’s license on the spot, and the suspension begins immediately.
• Depending on previous offenses or refusals, you can have your license automatically suspended for a period of 90 days to five years.
• The administrative suspension is independent of any jail term, fine or other criminal penalty imposed in court for a DUI offense.

________________________________________
1st Offense
• Administrative License Suspension (ALS) for a prohibited BAC;
• ALS for test refusal = one year license suspension;
• Jail – Minimum of three consecutive days or 3-day driver intervention program;
• Fine – Minimum $200 and not more than $1,000;
• Court License Suspension – 6 months to 3 years.
________________________________________
2nd Offense
• ALS for one year for a prohibited BAC;
• ALS for test refusal = two year license suspension;
• Jail – Minimum of 10 consecutive days or five days jail + minimum 18 consecutive days of electronically monitored house arrest combined, not to exceed 6 months;
• Fine – Minimum $300 and not more than $1,500;
• Discretionary driver’s intervention program;
• Vehicle immobilization and plates impounded for 90 days;
• Court License Suspension – 1 year to 5 years.
________________________________________
3rd Offense
• ALS for two years for a prohibited BAC;
• ALS for test refusal = three year license suspension;
• Jail – Minimum 30 consecutive days to one year;
• Alternative sentence – 15 days or Jail + minimum 55 consecutive days of electronically monitored house arrest combined, maximum of one year;
• Fine – Minimum $500 and not more than $2,500;
• Mandatory attendance in an alcohol treatment program paid for by offender;
• Vehicle immobilization and plates impounded for 180 days;
• Court License Suspension – 1 year to 10 years.
________________________________________
4th or More Offense or Motor Vehicle Related Felony
• ALS for three years for a prohibited BAC;
• ALS for test refusal = five years license suspension;
• Jail – Minimum of 60 consecutive days and up to one year in jail;
• Fine – Minimum $750 and not more than $10,000;
• Mandatory drug/alcohol treatment program paid for by offender;
• Vehicle Forfeiture – Mandatory criminal forfeiture of vehicle operated by offender, imposed by court;
• Court License Suspension – 3 years to Permanent Revocation.