Simply enter in your phone number to be instantly connected to someone in our office who can answer your questions.
Call today at
Columbus criminal defense attorneys were recently contacted by a client arrested and charged with a second 1st degree misdemeanor high concentration OVI in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. This second 1st degree misdemeanor high concentration OVI was within six years of our clients previous OVI conviction which, if convicted of this second OVI charge, our client faced mandatory 10 days in jail, Class 4 driver’s license suspension between 1-5 years, identifying OVI yellow license plates, and the Interlock breath test device installed in his vehicle. Our client was pulled over for a headlight violation by the Ohio Highway Patrol. After being required to take a field sobriety test and breathalyzer test our client was arrested and taken to Dayton County Jail and charged with 1st degree misdemeanor high concentration OVI.
Researching attorneys for this serious charge our client retained the experienced services of Columbus defense criminal attorneys at Luftman, Heck & Associates. Our attorneys discovered the OHP DVD camera in the vehicle did not work therefore recordings were not available for the field sobriety test given by the OHP trooper. Our attorneys discovered issues around the quality of the results from the breathalyzer machine. Due to the questionable quality of evidence against our client Columbus criminal defense attorneys successfully negotiated the reduced charge of reckless operation of a vehicle, a non-alcohol related traffic violation. Our client avoided jail time, the OVI yellow license plates, the Interlock car system and a permanent criminal conviction of a second OVI on his record. Columbus criminal defense attorneys understand the importance of evidence in defending our clients and work diligently to ensure our clients receive personal and professional legal representation against every charge in every case.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case. Individual results may vary based on the facts, injuries, jurisdiction, venue, witnesses, parties, and other factors. The results and client testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of the results obtained by all clients or their satisfaction with the firm’s services.