Bores v. Rice, 6628-7-145
| Decision Date | 10 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 6628-7-145,6628-7-145 |
| Parties | , 46 O.O.2d 227 BORES v. RICE, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
This cause came on for hearing on the 30th day of December 1968.
The court, having duly heard and considered the evidence in the case, finds that the petitioner was shown error in the action taken by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under Sections 4511.19 and 4511.19.1, Revised Code.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the court that the suspension of Harold James Bores' license to drive shall not be imposed and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles is ordered to return said license to him. Costs taxed to the state of Ohio in the sum of $........
This case was brought before the court by a petition filed by Harold James Bores as plaintiff against Fred Rice, Registrar of Motor Vehicles as defendant. The action was to compel the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to return the driver's license of Harold Bores, which had been suspended for refusing to submit to a sobriety test under Sections 4511.19 and 4511.19.1, Revised Code.
The evidence showed that Harold Bores was not advised that he could have a physician or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test as required by Section 4511.19, Revised Code. The evidence further showed that Mr. Bores refused to take the police sobriety test only after being denied the right to have his own physician administer a clinical test.
The court finds that Mr. Bores' right to be advised of and to have his own physician administer a sobriety test is mandatory within the meaning of Section 4511.19, Revised Code. The court further finds that this question can be raised at this hearing although not one of the grounds listed in Section 4511.19.1, Revised Code. The only manner in which the court can enforce police compliance of a defendant's rights under Section 4511.19, Revised Code, is to order restoration of his license when there is non-compliance. To hold otherwise would, in effect, deny a defendant remedy for a violation of his rights.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myers
...results. Other courts have answered affirmatively. See Couch v. Rice (1970), 23 Ohio App.2d 160, 261 N.E.2d 187; Bores v. Rice (1969), 17 Ohio Misc. 163, 244 N.E.2d 808. It should be noted that here we are not confronted by any question of constitutional magnitude which might place this iss......
-
Couch v. Rice
...administer an additional test or tests as provided in Section 4511.19. In a case similar to this, Bores v. Rice (1969), 17 Ohio Misc. 163, at page 164, 244 N.E.2d 808, at page 808, the court 'The court finds that Mr. Bores' right to be advised of and to have his own physician administer a s......