For a statute to be constitutionally valid, it must put a citizen of ordinary intelligence on notice of what conduct the law prescribes. Many have argued that it is impossible for the average person to tell when he will be over the .08 limit, and that thus, the law is too vague to be enforced.
‘Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.’[1]
Thus vague laws may trap the unwary because they do not provide adequate warning of the conduct that they seek to prohibit.[2]
Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis.[3]
But the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that this statute is not vague and puts Ohio motor vehicle operators on sufficient notice to choose the proper path between right and wrong.[4]
If you need representation against drunk driving charges, you can call me at 614.580.4316. I don’t charge for initial consultations to see if I can help you. If you decide you want to hire me after we speak, then we can go from there on what it will cost.
[1] Perez v. Cleveland (1997), 78 Ohio St. 3d 376 at 378, quoting Grayned v. Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104 at 108-109.
[2] Klein v. Leis, 2002 Ohio App. 1575 (April 10, 2002) Hamilton Co. App. No. C-0200012, unreported.
[3] Grayned v. Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104.
[4] State v. Tanner (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 1.