Judge declines to dismiss OVI cases
Aug. 11—BY BRIAN HAYTCHER
JEFFERSON — Ashtabula County Eastern County Court Judge Harold Specht declined to dismiss a number of OVI cases at a hearing on Thursday morning.
The Ashtabula County Prosecutor's Office filed motions to dismiss a number of pending cases with outstanding warrants in Eastern County Court, including cases of operating a vehicle while intoxicated/impaired from the 1990s.
Specht scheduled a hearing for Thursday morning on the first 15 proposed dismissals.
Fourteen were OVI cases, and the last was a minor misdemeanor drug possession case, Specht said.
One case, in which the defendant had died, was dismissed at the start of the hearing.
Specht said the motions to dismiss the cases were identical for each of the 15 cases, with the exception of case numbers and names, and those motions stated the dismissal of the cases were being requested in conjunction with the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
Lieutenant Tina Jackson, commander of the Ashtabula County OHP post, said OHP was not asking for dismissal of any OVI warrants.
"We asked the warrants to be reviewed because we do have warrants where troopers are no longer with the division, troopers that are deceased, defendants that are deceased, individuals with warrants that are out of state," she said.
Specht went through some of the cases that the Prosecutor's Office moved to dismiss.
"State v. Spittler, 98 TRC 632, admittedly, a long time ago," he said. "He pled. The state moved to dismiss a case the defendant already pled guilty to. He pled to an amended charge of OVI, from second offense to first."
The defendant, Quentin Spittler, failed to serve his jail term, and failed to complete a driver-intervention program.
In many of the other cases discussed, defendants failed to appear for arraignments and pre-trial hearings.
One defendant who failed to appear for arraignment, Robert Blenman, was charged with a second OVI in ten years, and had seven prior OVI charges, Specht said.
"Here's a guy that has a 30-year resume, a 30-year record of driving under the influence, 30 years, and the county prosecutor's office wanted to dismiss it," he said.
The Prosecutor's Office moved to withdraw its motion to dismiss on Thursday morning, before the hearing.
"So my question to the Prosecutor's Office is, no matter how old the case is, are we to reward potential traffic criminal defendants, and the traffic case for an OVI is a criminal case in this case, are we to reward them for flying under the radar and not getting caught again, not getting an OVI again?" Specht asked.
He said the Prosecutor's Office failed to provide copies of the motions to dismiss to the defendants' attorneys.
Of the 14 OVI cases the Prosecutor's Office sought to dismiss, seven involved crashes, three of which involved injuries, Specht said.
The Prosecutor's Office submitted four waves of motions for dismissal, in a total of 166 cases, 24 of which were OVI cases he said.
"This court, for future reference, offers warrant walk-ins every week on Thursdays at 9:30 a.m.," Specht said.
Anyone who calls the court about their warrant is informed about the opportunity to clear their warrant, he said.
Assistant Prosecutor Daniel Maynard said there are evidentiary issues in presenting a number of the cases, including arresting officers no longer working at the OHP post and a lack of maintenance records for the machine that was used to test blood alcohol levels.
There is an issue with outstanding warrants state-wide, he said.
"The Prosecutor's Office's efforts to address that at a local level is simply trying to get in front of what is a state-wide problem," Maynard said.
He said the office is not in favor of dismissing OVIs.
"There are a number of these OVIs, that simply, it is not possible for us to pursue them," Maynard said. "I have no personal interest, and nor does our office, in rewarding individuals for avoiding their OVIs long enough that the case goes stale."
The maintenance records issue should not be a problem in the future, he said.
Specht said he understands the issues at hand for law enforcement and prosecutors, but every OVI case is serious.
"The court, the prosecutor's office, law enforcement, everybody, owes it, no matter how old those cases are, for that person to be brought before the court ... and face the music," he said. "At that time, the prosecutor stands up in court ... and [says] there is absolutely no way to pursue this, then I will consider dismissal, but not until then for OVI cases."
Specht said he will consider dismissing non-OVI cases if the Prosecutor's Office gets an OK from the arresting agency on dismissing the case.
"This court will never dismiss an OVI unless we go through the proper channels and the person is brought before the court," he said.
Maynard said he understood.
A representative of the Public Defender's Office said it would not object to the state's motions to dismiss.
After the hearing, Ashtabula County Prosector Colleen O'Toole said this is part of an ongoing program to reduce warrants.
"This is an initiation of a beta, so we understood that some would be denied," O'Toole said. "But overall, we are very hopeful about the results, and we will wait for the judge's ruling.
"Of course, the Prosecutor's Office doesn't condone, as Mr. Maynard said, going light on or dismissing OVIs, but when we cannot prosecute because we don't have evidence, it presents a problem under the code of conduct, in that the prosecutor is forbidden from prosecuting cases they don't have probable cause for. In filing these, we believed we do not have probable cause. The judge has the right to disagree with us."
