bmv 2255

• State v. Noster, (Ohio 2011)

ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE SUSPENSION: An arresting officer complies with R.C. 4511.192’s requirement that an arrestee be informed of the consequences of failing to submit to a requested breath-alcohol test by reading the top portion of BMV Form 2255, which contains verbatim the language of R.C. 4511.192(B). The officer need not inform an arrestee of the length of the license suspension faced for refusing to submit to a breath test.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Schultz, (Ohio 2008)

felony OVI; R.C. 4511.19(A); refusal; equivalent offense; R.C. 4511.181; indictment; sufficiency; physical control violation; operate; R.C. 4511.01(HHH); BMV form 2255; manifest weight

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Meissner, (Ohio 2005)

BMV Form 2255 not complete as she was not served with Statement of Facts.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Gates Mills v. Wazbinski, (Ohio 2003)

MOTION TO SUPPRESS; BLOOD; ALCOHOL; CONSENT; UNDER THE INFLUENCE; ODOR; BMV FORM 2255; SAMPLE; GREY-TOPPED VIALS; ISOPROPYL; BETADINE SWAB; CHAIN OF CUSTODY; GATES MILLS ORDINANCE 334.01(A)(1); GATES MILLS ORDINANCE 334.01(A)(2); OMVI; BAC; NOLLE; CONVICTION; PROBABLE CAUSE; ARREST; ADMISSION; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; IMPLIED CONSENT; OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 3701.53-05; SOLD ANTICOAGULANT; PROPER REFRIGERATION; TWO HOUR LIMIT; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLAINCE; R.C. 4511.19(D)(1); 4511.19(A)(1); R.C. 4511.19(A)(2); EXPERT TESTIMOY; GAS CHROMATOGRAPH; PREJUDICE.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Clinger, (Ohio 2005)

Appeal of Administrative License Suspension (ALS) based on matters outside the scope of R.C. 4511.197. R.C. 4511.97 defines and limits the scope of an ALS appeal. Technical defect in completion of BMV Form 2255 cured by officer's testimony during ALS hearing.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Columbus v. Shepherd, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress results of BAC test. Probable cause existed to support arrest for OVI impaired offense prior to administration of PBT and BAC results need not be suppressed based on independent source doctrine. Numerous indicators existed to indicate impairment, regardless of whether appellant's consent was voluntary, and they were sufficient to constitute probable cause to arrest without PBT results.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Tweddell, (Ohio 2010)

Arresting officer’s testimony at hearing on motion to suppress and administrative license suspension appeal satisfied State’s burden to show prima facie evidence justifying license suspension. The trial court properly concluded that R.C. 4511.197(C), which allows for an appeal of an ALS only for certain enumerated reasons, precludes an appeal based on violations of other statutory provisions related to the imposition of an ALS. Defendant’s arguments were not proper grounds for an appeal because they did not relate to the enumerated conditions. Judgment affirmed.

... test, as stated on the back of BMV Form 2255 ("BMV 2255"). Tweddell signed the form and took t...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Rawnsley, (Ohio 2011)

Trial court did not err in suppressing evidence of blood-alcohol test. Defendant’s consent to the test was not knowing and intelligent, because she was incorrectly advised that she was under arrest and would be subject to an immediate license suspension if she refused the test. Trial court’s finding that State had failed to prove exigent circumstances justifying the taking of defendant’s blood sample without a warrant is not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where officer had probable cause for the search within a few minutes of the suspected violation. Affirmed.

... that when Ms. Rawnsley was read the BMV  2255 language she was not under arrest.  Officer Fo...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Rhoads, (Ohio 2011)

ALS Suspension; Disqualification

...2255 form and he refused to submit a chemical test of his breath.  He was placed  under an administrative lic...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. King, (Ohio 2012)

The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion for dismissal based on speedy trial grounds. There were various tolling events which consumed the overage in days. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to dismiss based on appellant’s challenge of the prosecution’s use of a prior OVI conviction for enhancement purposes. Appellant failed to meet her burden in demonstrating that the conviction was constitutionally defective. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The record demonstrates that appellant was not subject to a custodial interrogation and did not need to be Mirandized. Appellant received effective assistance of trial court. The jury conviction was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.

... King the BMV 2255 form and  advised her that she was under arre...

• Ohio Supreme Court