Interviewer: What interesting DUI/OVI cases have you handled? Can you give the readers an idea of how you approach these types of cases?
Dale: I can tell you a trend that has occurred with people taking breath tests. The state of Ohio has introduced a new Breathalyzer machine called the Intoxilyzer 8000. This machine is unreliable. Cincinnati has already ceased using these machines because they are subject to attack from defense attorneys. So, that’s a problem. Do they go back to using the old machines?
Once you’ve been granted authorization access to the Intoxilyzer 8000, that is the only machine you can use. So, thinking about reverted to the old machines is a problem as well. It’s a regulation that dictates that rule.
Another problem is the record-keeping. It is always a local function of the local police department. Now, it’s the Department of Health in Columbus that calibrates the machines. So whenever you challenges the results from the machine, people from the Department of Health in Columbus have to travel to testify.
This makes it difficult for the local prosecutor because almost every case where results are from the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine, they are being challenged. I have a challenge in as well.
Interviewer: Does that make the local prosecutor more amenable to offering good plea deals?
Dale: Yes, it does. This is one tactic you can use in these cases, even in the worst case, where you make the other side work.
Interviewer: Do you have any other defenses that you utilize?
Dale: You always have to look at the Fourth Amendment with any case where they claim the client was weaving on the road. I examine the video and I might see some drifting but no weaving. In my mind, there is a distinction between the two.