Most people assume that a first-time OVI conviction automatically comes with a fixed license suspension that cannot be shortened. Courts often reinforce that assumption by treating suspension length as a foregone conclusion. That assumption is incomplete. Ohio law allows a court to reduce a first-time OVI suspension by up to half. But that authority only exists within a specific statutory framework, and it comes with conditions that must be accepted and carried out. Underst

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