ACLU fights new Ohio law

An attorney says the law is too invasive.

COLUMBUS (AP) — Civil liberties advocates brand as unconstitutional a new Ohio law that gives police more leeway than most states to force a blood or urine test on certain drunken-driving suspects.

Under the law that took effect Tuesday, authorities in Ohio can force drivers who have two or more drunken-driving convictions to submit to such tests without their consent.

The state previously required authorities to get a warrant from a judge to test blood or urine for alcohol or drugs from people who don’t initially give their consent.

“We do believe this law is unconstitutional, especially the part that basically says police don’t have to have a warrant,” said Jeffrey Gamso, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. “That’s just wrong and a complete misunderstanding of what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.”

State Sen. Timothy Grendell, the Chesterland Republican who sponsored the legislation, said that a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in 1966 supports the law. He said the court ruled that authorities could compel a driver suspected of drunken driving to give a blood sample.

Gamso argues that the court said in that case that it would allow taking of blood from a driver when police had probable cause and authorities could not get a warrant in time to test the blood before signs of alcohol would have disappeared.

“This law is saying that it’s a general rule not to have to get a warrant and that is not what the court said,” Gamso said. “Warrants are there to protect us from over-reaching by the police.”

Grendell argued Tuesday that there is nothing unconstitutional about the law and said the 1966 case did not involve an inability to get a warrant.

“It said that you don’t need to jump through hoops to protect a repeat criminal,” Grendell said. “This particular provision is important because it’s going to be targeting those repeat drunken drivers who have become educated and think they can scam the system by refusing to be tested.”

One prosecutor said the law is a powerful change.

“You don’t come up on a murder scene and have a man standing there with a smoking gun and allow him to say, ‘No, I refuse to hand you the best evidence you’ve got,’” said Delaware Prosecutor David Yost. “So, why should suspected drunk drivers be allowed to keep our evidence from authorities?”

But Cincinnati attorney Chuck Strain, who specializes in DUI law, said the law is too invasive and violates drivers’ rights.

“It doesn’t make me proud that my government is doing that,” Strain said.

The law applies to people convicted of intoxicated driving twice in six years or five times in 20 years. Among other provisions, it requires an online database to track offenders with drunken-driving and related convictions and increases penalties for repeat drunken-driving offenses.

Grendell said he is comfortable, based on the Supreme Court precedent, that any effort to argue that a warrant is required will fail in the court system.

Though the ACLU has no immediate plans to challenge the law, Gamso said he would not rule out the possibility.

“I believe the first challenge will come from a criminal defense attorney representing someone forced to submit to the testing,” he said.