Choose A Team Of Award-Winning Attorneys

Case Results

Noteworthy OVI Defense Results

At The Law Offices of Saia & Piatt, Inc. our Ohio OVI lawyers defend individuals charged with operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI) or related offenses. We know what is at stake after a DUI arrest and we know that no one can afford a conviction. We have made it our personal duty to make certain that our clients do not become victims of wrongful conviction. As nationally recognized trial attorneys, we are proud to offer effective legal representation. Every client who comes through our doors can confidently follow our legal advice knowing that what they are being advised to do is in their best interest. We will attempt to minimize your liability and maximize your chances of attaining a positive outcome, whether that means pressing for a case dismissal, acquittal, or reduction in charges. The following are case examples of clients who chose to hire The Law Offices of Saia & Piatt, Inc. to represent them after an OVI arrest, for criminal defense, and for legal representation for other matters. Learn about ways in which we can help you by reading about what we have accomplished for others.

Charge Reduced To Minor Misdemeanor

Client had a 7-year-old in the vehicle who was not restrained. The child’s head struck the windshield and sustained minor injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Our client was charged with OVI, child endangering, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to control. A urine chemical test came back with a 0.147 alcohol content. After hearing on a Motion to Suppress Evidence, the urine alcohol test and all standardized field sobriety tests were suppressed. A Motion in Limine was granted whereby evidence of failing to use the proper child restraint could not be used for any other purpose than the violation of that particular statute. Our defendant plead “guilty” to a seat belt violation and “no contest” to the remaining facts. Our client was found guilty of a minor misdemeamor reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and was sentenced to a $225.00 fine plus court costs. (Perry County Municipal Court Case Nos. TRC 1300618 and CRB 1300271)

Breath Test Suppressed & Case Dismissed

Breath test suppressed after motion hearing because machine was not properly calibrated and state could not comply with Ohio regulations related to instrument checks. OVI ultimately dismissed because State could not prove its case. (State v. Gorman, Fairfield County Municipal Court, TRC 1310421)

Charges Reduced After Challenge Of Breath Test Evidence

Our client, a mechanic whose ability to drive is crucial to the operation of his business, was charged with OVI after allegedly speeding and failing to drive within his lane. The officer claimed he smelled of alcohol, admitted to consuming alcohol, had red glassy eyes, failed all field sobriety tests, and had a marijuana pipe in his possession. He later submitted to a breath test showing him to be nearly twice the legal limit. At his first appearance in court, we were able to restore his ability to drive. We later conducted an extensive investigation of the breath machine revealing months of invalid testing. We filed a motion challenging the validity of the breath test based on our investigation as well as the constitutionality of the search of his vehicle. Prior to a hearing on our motion, the prosecutor offered to reduce the charges to reckless operation including a dismissal of the drug paraphernalia charge.

Charges Reduced After Challenge Of Initial Stop

Our client, who travels long distances regularly for his livelihood, was stopped for an equipment violation. The officer’s claimed that he smelled of alcohol and our client admitted to just having left a bar and consuming alcohol. The report alleged that he had failed all field sobriety tests and a breath test reported he was in excess of one and a half times the legal limit. We filed a motion challenging the initial stop of the vehicle as well as the validity of the breath test based on our investigation. Prior to a hearing on our motion, the prosecutor offered to reduce the charges to reckless operation.

Charges Reduced After Challenge Of Officer Testimony

Our client was pulled over speeding and charged with his second OVI in a six year period. The officer alleged that he had bloodshot, red eyes, poor coordination, a slur to his speech and a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage. The officer also claimed that alcohol was obvious and that he was clearly unfit to operate a vehicle. Our client was accused of refusing to submit to field tests as well as the breath test. We proceeded to a motion hearing and challenged the veracity of the officer’s testimony and his legal standing for ordering our client out of the car and arresting him. After this hearing, but prior to a ruling from the court, the prosecutor offered to reduce the charges.

Charges Reduced After Suppression Hearing

Our client, who frequently travels cross country for his career, was charged with OVI after his car was found wrecked against a tree. The police report alleged an odor of alcohol, slur to his speech, and admission to driving when impaired by alcohol. A blood draw showed him to be in excess of three times the legal limit. Following a suppression hearing where we brought multiple challenges to the blood test, the state offered a reduction of the charges.

Charges Reduced To Reckless Operation

Our client was accused of pulling out in traffic without his headlights on in front of a police cruiser and continuing to swerve while driving. The officer claimed he smelled of alcohol, fumbled with his wallet, and had bloodshot glassy eyes. The report alleged the he immediately exhibited clues on one field sobriety test and he refused the remaining tests. He later refused to submit to a breath test. We filed a motion to asserting a lack of cause to arrest our client based on a lack of evidence and poorly administered field sobriety tests. Prior to a hearing on our motion, the prosecutor offered to reduce the charges to reckless operation and our client paid a fine and court costs, but did not have to serve any jail or attend a hotel program.

Marijuana OVI Case Dismissed

Client charged with marijuana OVI after being stopped for speeding. Defendant challenged the OVI based on the fact that standard field sobriety testing does not test for impairment from marijuana use and cannot be used as probable cause to request a urine test. The court agreed. OVI dismissed. (State v. Martin, Cambridge Municipal Court, 13 TRC 01878 & 13 CRB 00256)

OVI Charge Appealed And Dismissed

Client was charged with OVI in Wooster (Wayne County), Ohio. Breath test result was .142. License suspended under an Administrative License Suspension (ALS). We requested driving privileges and were denied via a “blanket Entry” used by the Court in all cases. Attorney Saia appealed the denial of the driving privileges on the basis that it was improper for the court to use a blanket entry. Because he appealed relative to the ALS, the trial court “stayed” the OVI charge, despite Attorney Saia’s objections. While the appeal was “dismissed” the judge lifted the “stay” and reactivated the OVI charge. Attorney Saia filed a Motion to dismiss based upon the client’s denial of his “speedy trial” rights. The trial court denied that Motion and we entered a “No Contest” plea to the OVI charge and appealed. The Court of appeals ruled in Attorney Saia’s client’s favor and discharged the client. The Court held that the client’s right to speedy trial was violated and the charged against him had to be dismissed. (State of Ohio v. Hollaender, III, Case Nos. 12CA0040 and 13CA0006)

Successful Outcome In Delaware County OVI Case

Client was stopped for speed of 85 mph in a 55 mph zone by an officer of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The arresting officer noted that client had an odor of alcohol and glassy eyes. Client submitted to FSTs, exhibiting 6 clues of intoxication on the HGN, 3 clues on the Walk-and-Turn, and after putting his foot down 3 times during the One Leg Stand, the test was terminated without completion. Client submitted to a breath test and tested .131%. Attorney Jon Jensen called into question the validity of the FST as the client was a 64½ year-old-man. Attorney Jensen also examined the area where the FST were conducted and discovered the tests were administered on a slope. Attorney Jensen further questioned whether the alleged traffic violation of speeding was observed within the park boundaries under the jurisdiction of the ODNR officer. Attorney Jensen also challenged the validity of the breath test as the blank test ran after the client’s test read a residual .004%. Consequently, the State amended the original charge of OVI to a minor misdemeanor offense of Reckless Operation. The client was fined $150.00 and costs.

Won The Right To Challenge Breath Tests

Attorney Jon Saia was successful in winning an important case which resulted in allowing a challenge to the results of a breath alcohol test at trial for the first time in 27 years in Ohio. (State of Ohio v. Gerome, Athens County Municipal Court, Athens, Ohio)