Traffic stops are one of the most common points of contact between the public and law enforcement. They are also one of the most misunderstood. In Ohio OVI investigations , confusion is not accidental. Most people do not know what they are legally required to do during a stop, what is optional, or how their words, actions, and decisions may later be interpreted. That lack of clarity shifts power entirely to the roadside officer, often without the driver realizing it. The  OVI

Field sobriety tests are defended on the ground that they are standardized. Officers invoke training. Prosecutors invoke the manual. The promise is that the test being described is the test that was validated. That promise often fails. In Ohio OVI investigations , officers routinely rely on techniques the manual never endorses. When asked to justify those techniques, the response is not science or training. It is silence. The absence of authority matters, especially when the

Field sobriety tests are often framed as objective evidence. Officers testify with confidence, jurors hear technical language, and conclusions are presented as if they rest on science. They do not. In Ohio OVI investigations , field sobriety tests ultimately depend on officer opinion. That distinction matters. When evidence is based on judgment rather than measurement, it must be evaluated differently. Calling discretion “science” does not make it so. Early in any discussion

Field sobriety tests are repeatedly described as standardized. Officers testify that they are trained to follow a manual, taught to administer tests the same way every time, and expected to apply uniform criteria. That description often collapses under scrutiny. In Ohio OVI investigations , officers frequently add steps that do not appear anywhere in the NHTSA manua l. These improvised techniques are not minor stylistic differences. They fundamentally change what the test is

The one-leg stand test is often treated as straightforward. Officers describe it as simple, easy to administer, and easy to score. That simplicity is misleading. In Ohio OVI investigations , the one-leg stand test frequently becomes an exercise in officer discretion rather than standardized evaluation. Small deviations in timing, instruction, and interpretation can dramatically affect how performance is judged. When those deviations are ignored, the test’s reliability is ove

The walk-and-turn test is often described as simple. Officers present it as straightforward, standardized, and easy to administer correctly. That assumption does not hold up. In Ohio OVI investigations , the walk-and-turn test is one of the most frequently mishandled field sobriety tests . In fact, it is second only to the HGN test in terms of officer error. The problem is not subtle. The test breaks down before it ever becomes evidence. When the foundation is flawed, the c

Police officers routinely testify that field sobriety tests are standardized. That word carries weight. It suggests precision, consistency, and scientific reliability. But when officers are asked to explain their own training, that certainty often collapses. In Ohio OVI investigations , officers frequently cannot recall the instructions they were taught to give, the order they were taught to follow, or the purpose behind each step of a field sobriety test. What remains is fa

Field sobriety tests are often presented as scientific, standardized tools for measuring impairment. Officers testify about “clues,” scoring, and numerical cutoffs as though those numbers reflect objective, validated science. They do not. In Ohio OVI investigations , one of the most misunderstood aspects of field sobriety testing is  clue counting . The idea that observing a certain number of “clues” automatically proves impairment is a foundational assumption in many arrests

Field sobriety tests are routinely presented as objective and standardized. Officers describe them as scientific. Prosecutors rely on them as indicators of impairment to obtain OVI convictions . But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) , which developed these tests, makes clear in its current training materials that the tests are  not universally reliable  and are  not validated for everyone . This is not a defense invention. It is a limitation built

When people picture field sobriety tests during an OVI stop, they often imagine the One-Leg Stand (“OLS”) . It looks simple. It sounds simple. And officers routinely treat it as a reliable indicator of impairment. But the OLS test is one of the most misunderstood and misapplied tools used in Ohio OVI investigations. Despite its reputation as a straightforward balance test, the OLS is highly sensitive to physical limitations, medical conditions, anxiety, roadside environments

Most people pulled over for suspected OVI in Ohio are asked to perform the Walk-and-Turn test, also known as the heel-to-toe test. Officers describe it as simple, straightforward, and easy to follow. In reality, the Walk-and-Turn is one of the most complex divided-attention tests in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) system. It requires coordination, balance, mental focus, clear instructions, and multiple divided-attention skills that many complet

When someone is pulled over for suspected OVI in Ohio , most people assume the officer conducts the field sobriety tests under conditions that allow for accurate results. The truth is that the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (“NHTSA”) requires specific environmental conditions for these tests to have any reliability at all. Lighting, surface conditions, footwear, weather, distractions, and traffic all matter. Yet in real-world stops, officers almost never follow

When someone is stopped for suspected OVI in Ohio, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus ("HGN") test  is often the first “scientific” tool the officer relies on. Most drivers know it only as “the eye test,” and officers often describe it as the most reliable field sobriety test . In reality, HGN is the most technical, the most error-prone, and the least consistently administered test in the entire NHTSA  system. The moment an officer deviates from the required procedure , the result

When someone is charged with an OVI in Ohio , it often feels as though the entire system is stacked against them. Officers talk about standardized training, scientific procedures, and field sobriety protocols as if they are objective and neutral. But beneath the surface of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) Standardized Field Sobriety Testing system lies a flaw that experienced defense attorneys can use to shift how juries see the case. That flaw a

Field sobriety tests play a major role in OVI investigations . Officers rely on them to decide whether to arrest someone, prosecutors use them to justify charges, and courts often assume they are backed by reliable science. Most people have heard of the three main tests: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) , Walk and Turn , and One Leg Stand . What most people do not realize is that these tests are only validated when they are performed under strict, standardized conditions.

When an officer conducts a roadside investigation for suspected OVI , much of what happens is guided by formal training . Officers are taught specific procedures, specific sequences, and specific methods for evaluating impairment. These procedures are not optional. They exist to create structure and consistency in a situation that otherwise relies heavily on human judgment. Over time, however, officers often drift from the procedures they were taught. They shorten instruction

Field sobriety  tests often look official and scientific, but their reliability depends entirely on whether the officer followed very specific procedures. Most people do not realize that these roadside exercises only work when they are administered exactly as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  ("NHTSA") designed them. If an officer changes instructions, rushes through the test, skips required steps, or conducts the tests in poor conditions, the results lose v

Ohio’s open container law is much broader than most drivers realize. Many people think you can simply place an open drink in the back of the car and be safe. Others believe an open container only matters if the driver is drinking. In reality, Ohio law restricts where any open alcoholic beverage can be stored inside a vehicle, and a simple mistake can lead to criminal charges or trigger an OVI investigation . This article explains what counts as an open container, the narrow

An OVI charge is always serious, but for commercial drivers in Ohio it carries consequences that reach far beyond the courtroom. A regular driver faces a license suspension and fines. A commercial driver risks losing a career. Ohio follows strict state and federal rules for CDL holders, and even one OVI can trigger a long disqualification. The administrative process can threaten your CDL even before a judge hears the criminal case. Understanding these rules and responding qu

Arraignment in an OVI case is governed by Criminal Rule 10 . It must take place in open court. During this process, the judge reads the indictment, information, or complaint, or states the substance of the charges. After this, the defendant is called to plead. You may waive the formal reading of the charges, but you must receive a copy of the charging document before entering a plea. What Happens During Arraignment? Formal Reading of Charges The court begins by presenting t