The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Ohio Man Avoids DUI by Exclusion of “Horizontal Gaze” Test

Posted on March 31, 2014 by Andrew Findley
legal news for consumers

A Cincinnati man with prior DUI convictions found not guilty on a new charge when a “horizontal gaze” test was excluded from evidence.

A Cincinnati, Ohio man facing a felony charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) avoided jail time, steep fines, forfeiture of his driver license and his vehicle with the help of National Trial Lawyers Top 100 attorney Robert Healey of the law firm Suhre & Associates in Dayton.

According to Healey, an officer pulled over the suspect in January 2013 for going left of center in a passing zone, but pulling back too late after the passing zone ended.  The suspect stopped his vehicle in a private drive on a very steep hill.  The officer said he could smell a faint odor of alcohol.  When asked for his license, the suspect pulled out a gold credit card from his wallet instead.  He then gave the officer his driver license.

The suspect, who had five previous convictions on DUI charges, refused a Breathalyzer test.  The officer did not require the suspect to perform field sobriety tests such as walking and turning, and standing on one leg because of the steep grade.  He then performed a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test on the suspect.  Healey says, “The officer observed a lack of smooth pursuit and ‘slight’ nystagmus at maximum deviation.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) manual on standardized field sobriety testing says that all people will exhibit slight nystagmus at maximum deviation.  The clue is observed when the nystagmus is observed for more than four seconds.”

The officer then searched the vehicle and found a cup containing brown liquid and ice.  Healey says the officer “determined it was an alcoholic drink, but poured out the contents.”  The officer then arrested the suspect and charged him with 4th degree felony DUI and refusing a breath test.  Healey says both charges could have added up to an additional five years in prison if the suspect had been convicted.

According to Healey, “The DUI in this case carried 120 days up to one year with an optional 6 months to 30 months in prison.  The fine ranged from $1,350 to $10,500.  (The suspect’s) license could have been suspended for 3 years to life.  His vehicle could have been subject to forfeiture to the state upon conviction.”

Healey filed a motion in limine to exclude the HGN test, which he says was granted in part.  He adds, “The officer was allowed to testify about the test he did and the observations he made.  He was not allowed to testify about any statistical probabilities about what the defendant’s actual breath result might have been or whether it was over the legal limit.”

The case went to trial in October 2013 before Warren County Judge Robert W. Peeler.  After a one-day jury trial, the suspect was found not guilty on all counts.

Posted in Blog

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Salmon Purchasers Reach an $85 Million Price Fixing Settlement

Salmon Purchasers Reach an $85 Million Price Fixing Settlement

According to Reuters, who had seen the proposed settlement after it was filed on 25 May, the settlement will r[Read More...]
Ford Agrees to Pay $19 Million to Settle False Fuel Economy and Payload Claims

Ford Agrees to Pay $19 Million to Settle False Fuel Economy and Payload Claims

Ford Motor Company as agreed to a $19.2 million multistate settlement among 40 attorneys general that concluded an investigat[Read More...]
Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

Total Settlement in Surfside Condo Collapse Tops $1 Billion

The proposed settlement reached nearly a year after the catastrophic Surfside building collapse along the South Flo[Read More...]
UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

UCLA Will Pay Nearly $700 Million in Abuse Lawsuits

The University of California system announced Tuesday it will pay nearly $375 million to more than 300 women who said they we[Read More...]
Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

We are all too acquainted with insurance coverage in our everyday lives. According to Investopedia, everyone should have[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.