In State v. Moore, 2008-Ohio-2407, the 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed course on its prior decision in State v. Phillips, 2006-Ohio-6338and held that an officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop when the Defendant's vehicle drifted approximately 1/2 a car width over the fog line and off the road and then came back into his lane of travel.

There are two different types of traffic stops, each requiring a different constitutional standard to be lawful. State v. Moeller (Oct. 23, 2000), 12th Dist. No. CA99-07-128.

The second kind of constitutional traffic stop is an investigatory stop. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that the question of whether an investigatory traffic stop is reasonable requires an "objective assessment of a police officer's actions in light of the facts and circumstances then known to the officer." Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d at 6 (citation omitted). An investigatory stop is the motorized equivalent of a "Terry" stop, id.; see Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, and requires satisfaction of the "Terry" standard to be constitutionally acceptable: "articulable and reasonable suspicion" that an offense has been or is being committed. Prouse, 440 U.S. at 673. The lesser standard of reasonable articulable suspicion is defined as the ability of the officer "to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Terry, 392 U.S. at 20-21.

      (A)(1) No person shall operate ...   more »

On June 2, 2008, the 11th District Court of Appeals issued a decision in State v. Ferry, 2008-Ohio-2616.  The ...   more »

The Mothers Against Drunk Driving advocacy group has set an ambitious goal.  They want to be a nation with no drunk driving.  It also seems that they will stop at nothing to see this unlikely goal to fruition.  On their web site they have announced that within ten (10) years they will seek ignition interlock devises on all new cars. (Source: See 1 below).  They envision their lackies in the government and the insurance industry to help them implement this intrusion into our lives.  What makes this especially dishonest is MADD's use of public support for stopping repeat drunk driving offenders.  You have to look pretty hard to see their admission that persons actually convicted are not their real targets. (Id. at 1).  Remember when MADD talks of "first time offenders" they mean people who have been arrested but not convicted.  The interlock device would be required to get driving privileges until your trial.  Yet another MADD attack on the uniquely American ideal of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!

MADD is also seeking to develop additional methods of enforcement via advanced technologies: "advanced breath testing, both individual testing and testing for alcohol in the vehicle; using visible light to measure BAC through spectroscopy; using non-invasive touch-based systems to measure BAC transdermally; and eye-movement measurement technology, including involuntary eye movements related to BAC and eye closure that can indicate drowsiness." MADD, along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the auto industry and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, formed a cooperative research initiative through the Blue Ribbon Panel on Advanced Alcohol Detection Technology. Most of this technology will be used without the protections of the Fifth Amendment as most courts will undoubtedly rule this technology "non-testimonial." 

1.  http://www.madd.org/getdoc/1e61b7fc-2cd7-4b59-9f23-8c517a6d40e9/Advanced-Technology.aspx)

2. https://secure2.convio.net/madd/site/Advocacy?page=SplashPage&pagename=homepage&id=477&JServSessionIdr007=zfgmq9bcn3.app14b

Can you identify this drug?

If you can't, and you need to, you can visit http://www.dea.gov/photo_library.html for a pretty impressive ...   more »