663 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio Co. 1995), 95-TRC-640, State v. Logan

Docket Nº:95-TRC-640A.
Citation:663 N.E.2d 425, 75 Ohio Misc.2d 79
Opinion Judge:RONALD JAMES RICE, Judge.
Party Name:The STATE of Ohio v. LOGAN. [*]
Attorney:James A. O'Brien, Brookfield, for defendant. Kenneth Inskeep, Trumbull County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Hubbard, for plaintiff. James A. O'Brien, Brookfield, for defendant.
Case Date:October 16, 1995
Court:County Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 425

663 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio Co. 1995)

75 Ohio Misc.2d 79

The STATE of Ohio

v.

LOGAN. [*]

No. 95-TRC-640A.

Trumbull County Court of Ohio.

October 16, 1995

Page 426

Kenneth Inskeep, Trumbull County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Hubbard, for plaintiff.

       James A. O'Brien, Brookfield, for defendant.

       RONALD JAMES RICE, Judge.

       This matter came before the court on the defendant's motion to dismiss as filed on or about October 12, 1995. A hearing was held on the motion on or about October 12, 1995.

       Defendant Patrick W. Logan was arrested by the Brookfield Township Police Department on July 28, 1995. The defendant was thereafter charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug of abuse, and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood-alcohol concentration, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and (3), respectively. (The violations will be referred to hereinafter collectively as "DUI.") In addition, the arresting officer, acting pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 4511.191, the state's Implied Consent Act, notified the defendant that he was being placed under an administrative license suspension ("ALS"), which had the effect of immediately stripping the defendant of his right to operate a motor vehicle in Ohio.

       The defendant, through his legal counsel, has moved to dismiss the DUI charges. The arguments of the defendant are that the due process guarantees of Ohio Constitution are substantially equivalent to due process guarantees of the United States Constitution and, accordingly, United States Supreme Court decisions may be utilized to interpret Ohio guarantees. Fourteenth Amendment; Sections 1, 16, and 19, Article I, Ohio Constitution.

       This court has previously ruled that the driver's license suspension proceedings under the Implied Consent Act are civil and administrative and are separate and [75 Ohio Misc.2d 81] independent from any criminal prosecution. R.C. 4511.191. If the administrative license suspension of the defendant's driver's license under the Implied Consent Act was punishment, the fact that suspension was handed down in a noncriminal proceeding would not bar application of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against multiple punishments. Fifth Amendment; R.C. 4511.191.

       The prior administrative license suspension of the defendant's driver's license under the Implied Consent Act does not bar, under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions, subsequent prosecution under R.C. 4511.19 for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or for operating a motor vehicle with prohibited blood-alcohol concentration. The license suspension is a remedial action for the safety of the general public and is not a punishment as argued by the defendant.

Page 427

Fifth Amendment; Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution; R.C. 4511.191.

       The defendant's motion to dismiss is based upon defendant's belief that the institution of this prosecution subjects defendant to the possibility of successive punishments. Such a possibility, defendant claims, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant reasons that this constitutional violation is impermissible and necessitates the dismissal of all of the charges pending against defendant which have resulted from this arrest.

       The state for its part urges that the protection of the Fifth Amendment and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, which mirrors the United States Constitution's protection against double jeopardy protection upon which the defendant relies, are inapplicable to the matters now before this court. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the ALS does not serve as a punishment at all, but, rather, serves only as a remedial function of protection.

       The double jeopardy questions which the defendant raises involve due process rights which are guaranteed defendant under both the state and federal Constitutions. The guarantees, contained in Sections 1, 16, and 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, are substantially equivalent to the due process guarantees of the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP