Ohio Rep. Robert Mecklenborg is a Republican legislator and former prosecutor who has made his career on family values legislation, including his opposition to abortion rights. The Roman Catholic legislator seemed to have strayed a bit after he was arrested in a car with temporary Kentucky plates in Indiana with a young stripper. Tests found he was loaded with not just alcohol but Viagra.
The arrest in April just recently came to light.
His official bio lists his work on “parish-related activities.”
Here is the stop and arrest:
He has pleaded not guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated and will appear in court this month.
Here are the arrest records.
Source: Examiner
Your blog is really interesting to me and your topics are very relevant. I was browsing around and came across something you might find interesting. I was guilty of 3 of them with my sites. “99% of website managers are doing these 5 mistakes”. http://bit.ly/tJJczA You will be suprised how simple they are to fix.
Voter ID Bill-Sponsoring Ohio Politician Faces Further Outrage Over DUI/ Viagra Incident
Ryan J. Reilly | July 16, 2011
TPMMuckraker
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/republican_speaker_wants_ohio_voter_id_bill_sponso.php?ref=fpb
Excerpt:
The Republican speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives wants a fellow Republican legislator who sponsored a voter ID bill and was charged with drunk driving to resign from his seat.
Speaker William G. Batchelder said that he doesn’t think Rep. Robert Mecklenborg will “come back to the capitol building,” Jim Siegel of the Columbus Dispatch reported.
Sam Williams:
” I’m not sure where you practice, but the scenarios you keep giving about cops and their grudges and false charges don’t really ever happen where I’m from and yes I do consider myself lucky for that.”
******************
Man are you naive. Take a stroll through New Orleans, Cincinnatti, or New York, and watch some of those cops in action. All those cities have suffered egregious instances of police abuse. if you want a list throughout the country try here: http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
You could also try reading this blog where scores of these instances are discussed.
You can disagree all you want, but yours is a position borne of ignorance, Polly Annish supposition and feelings not facts. You’d best grow up and see what’s going on out there, my friend.
It’s amazing to me how those with the least knowledge of a situation hold the strongest views — the arrogance of ignorance, I suppose..
One other fact I would like to add is that Mr. Mecklenborg was driving with an expired drivers license so technically speaking drunk or not he shouldn’t have been driving. Although, I know that is only a minor violation it doesn’t help him.
Well, Mespo I would first off like to say I never stated that it was illegal to drink and drive however it is stupid and one should have the common sense to not do it. I actually know the law quite well, and from my eyes the officer did all the test as they were supposed to be administered. I feel that he was too impaired to be operating a vehicle by my own observations, not because the cop says so. That and the fact the female in the car with him also stated she felt he was drunk and should not have been driving. She was actually with him to make that observation so I do take that into consideration.
I guess at this point I will agree to disagree with you. While it seems you see the innocense in a man that is more that obviously impaired I see him as someone who posed a danger on the roadway and to his passenger. I’m not sure where you practice, but the scenarios you keep giving about cops and their grudges and false charges don’t really ever happen where I’m from and yes I do consider myself lucky for that. I know their is corruption in some areas by some police agencies but they’re not all out to get the unsuspecting citizen. I will say this in closing I do believe in defending individuals that really did not commit a crime, but when its something so obvious as this case is, at least to me anyway I don’t believe in defending these individuals. I think they should admit to their mistake take the punishment and go on with their life. Bottom line drinking alcohol and driving a big machine don’t mix.
Well, Sam if they had them on their show, then he must be guilty. Do you see how silly that sounds?
Bottom line he’s on their entertainment show for his hypocrisy not his alleged intoxication. Let me fill you in on some facts and law here. First it is not illegal to drink and drive. It’s illegal to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants. The issue is here is whether or not he’s under the influence. It is not true that his sight is impaired. It may be true that he failed the test assuming all the test’ s safeguards were met. To my eye they weren’t according to NHTSA who approved the test. Also you’ve made the classic redneck assumption that he’s guilty ’cause the cop says so. Well we don’t dispense justice on the highways and we don’t let cops do the dispensing. That’s a feature of totalitarian societies that we don’t aspire to be — at least some of us with a history book don’t aspire to be.
By the way, I’m not offended at all, Sam. I’m just disappointed that some teacher somewhere didn’t explain our system to you or that you didn’t understand it when they did. Here’s a newsflash for you; nobody wants drunk drivers on the roadway. Even us bogeyman lawyers drive at night and have families who do to. The difference between us is that there is more to this situation than just getting drunks off the road. Like making sure the state doesn’t come to your car one night and because they don’t like the way you look or what you say or your politics, and decide to place a charge against you that you don’t deserve. Think about that scenario and you’ll see why, though I abhor this guy’s politics, hypocrisy and immorality, i would fight his case to the Indiana Supreme Court so you and yours wouldn’t have to undergo even the possibility of being hauled off to jail for a crime you didn’t commit at the whim of some cop with a grudge.
To Mespo727272, I somehow knew you would be offended by my post. I guess you can take it however you choose but the fact of the matter is, is that I believe that there should be no leniency given against drunk drivers be it their first offense or not. Which 9 times out of 10 its not their first offense it’s just the first time they’ve been caught. I would never expect anyone to defend me if I did something so foolish and idiotic. I would expect to be punished to the full extent of the law. I think its funny your last quote when implying I would ask for help if accused of a crime I did not commit. Apples and Oranges here because you see Mr. Mecklenborg did commit crime so there’s no question if he did or didn’t. I have seen where many individuals get off for these so called first offenses just to go right back out and do it again. No one accidentially drinks then gets in a car and drives.
In closing, while I don’t believe that Mecklenborg was being belligerent during the stop I will say again he was being very argumenative and LIED several times about even having anything to drink. I realize that his BAC was by your words only. 097 and not extremely intoxicated by a numbers standpoint, however everyone’s reaction to alcohol is different not to mention the fact that he had two medications in his system which could have intensified his impairment. Anyway you cut it he was visually impaired as well as over the legal limit which I’m guessing they set those limits for a reason not to say well you were only over a little bit so its ok. Thankfully,I’m not the only one that feels this way about this individual. Heck Keith Olberman had him on his countdown as the worst person in the world and Jay Leno had his mugshot and made a few remarks.
DUI is a very serious matter indeed and LEO’s should be on the watch for it to get dangerous drivers off the road. However, I am old enough to remember the decrying of the fact that police in the USSR and other totalitarian regimes used frequent roadblocks to control their populace and certainly prevent escape over the iron curtain. We have copied “roadblocks” here, with seemingly the best intentions, yet in some way they differ little from the techniques used by our former “cold war” opponents.
Sam Williams:
Well, Sam you’re right about exactly one thing, I am a lawyer. The rest of your comment is a thinly veiled attack on lawyers–and maybe drunk drivers as sort of a side show. I’d take you on a point by point refutation but why bother with a guy with a mean streak. You really don’t care about the facts, the law, or the public policy implications. You’re what I call a “close enough” citizen. Your only concern is for getting the law enforced against the other guy by whatever means are available. For you, most any old adherence to the law by law enforcement is close enough. For many of the rest of us who understand that the greater threat to your freedom comes not from some poor hapless drinker who you are certain was going to be driving erratically at some point in his life, but rather from a government that has no boundaries. You’ll blindly support such a government in its quest for “safety” because you feel that strictly enforcing the rights of the other guy has absolutely no effect on yours. History, common sense, and the minds of greater people throughout the centuries find your position a precursor to tyranny, but, hey, it’s your half-thought out opinion and you are entitled to it –regardless of merit. Hopefully, it’s not contagious or you may find yourself one day “close enough” to tyranny to make even you uncomfortable. Go find a lawyer then to help you out. You’ll be more receptive when its your ass on the line for a crime you may not have committed, but are accused of nonetheless.
FFleo:
I believe the Ohio implied consent law only mandates consent to a blood or breath test and not the field sobriety tests. Here’s the law:
4511.191 [Effective 6/29/2011] Implied consent
(A)(1) As used in this section:
(a) “Physical control” has the same meaning as in section 4511.194 of the Revised Code.
(b) “Alcohol monitoring device” means any device that provides for continuous alcohol monitoring, any ignition interlock device, any immobilizing or disabling device other than an ignition interlock device that is constantly available to monitor the concentration of alcohol in a person’s system, or any other device that provides for the automatic testing and periodic reporting of alcohol consumption by a person and that a court orders a person to use as a sanction imposed as a result of the person’s conviction of or plea of guilty to an offense.
(2) Any person who operates a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley upon a highway or any public or private property used by the public for vehicular travel or parking within this state or who is in physical control of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley shall be deemed to have given consent to a chemical test or tests of the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine to determine the alcohol, drug of abuse, controlled substance, metabolite of a controlled substance, or combination content of the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine if arrested for a violation of division (A) or (B) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, section 4511.194 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, or a municipal OVI ordinance.
(3) The chemical test or tests under division (A)(2) of this section shall be administered at the request of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating or in physical control of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley in violation of a division, section, or ordinance identified in division (A)(2) of this section. The law enforcement agency by which the officer is employed shall designate which of the tests shall be administered.
(4) Any person who is dead or unconscious, or who otherwise is in a condition rendering the person incapable of refusal, shall be deemed to have consented as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, and the test or tests may be administered, subject to sections 313.12 to 313.16 of the Revised Code.
(5)(a) If a law enforcement officer arrests a person for a violation of division (A) or (B) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, section 4511.194 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance, or a municipal OVI ordinance and if the person if convicted would be required to be sentenced under division (G)(1)(c), (d), or (e) of section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, the law enforcement officer shall request the person to submit, and the person shall submit, to a chemical test or tests of the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol, drug of abuse, controlled substance, metabolite of a controlled substance, or combination content of the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine. A law enforcement officer who makes a request pursuant to this division that a person submit to a chemical test or tests is not required to advise the person of the consequences of submitting to, or refusing to submit to, the test or tests and is not required to give the person the form described in division (B) of section 4511.192 of the Revised Code, but the officer shall advise the person at the time of the arrest that if the person refuses to take a chemical test the officer may employ whatever reasonable means are necessary to ensure that the person submits to a chemical test of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma. The officer shall also advise the person at the time of the arrest that the person may have an independent chemical test taken at the person’s own expense. Divisions (A)(3) and (4) of this section apply to the administration of a chemical test or tests pursuant to this division.
Consider the following. Mr. Mecklenborg.’s overall behavior was not extreme. That is, his driving was not erratic, his demeanor was not belligerent during interrogation, and his blood ethanol level was *only* 0.017 % over the BAC limit (validity of the test within that margin: 0.080 v. 0.097?). Therefore, a DUI attorney seems to have some leeway to argue leniency for his client, largely based on the dash cam evidence, *if* how a defendent behaves matters to a judge in that jurisdiction (other than the failed field sobriety test).
Of course, by statute, he was intoxicated and when he refused the breathalyzer, he accrued greater penalties. However, a fair-minded judge—as Mespo noted—might consider leniency, especially if this is a first offence. Alternatively, if the judge goes by the book he may throw it at Mr. M because “regardless of how sober they themselves feel and **behave**, it is their BAC that matters in the eyes of the law once they get behind the wheel.
{Quote:
Ohio OVI (DUI) Laws: Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Limits and Implied Consent
“Per Se” BAC Limit 0.08 Percent
Zero Tolerance (Underage) BAC Limit 0.02 Percent
Enhanced Penalty (Aggravated) BAC Limit 0.17 Percent
Implied Consent to Submit to BAC Test? Yes
After stopping a motorist on suspicion of DUI, the officer typically checks for signs of impairment and may ask the driver to submit to a breathalyzer test to determine his or her blood-alcohol concentration (BAC).
But not everyone willingly provides a breath sample and police officers cannot force DUI suspects to blow into a tube.
DUI attorneys generally have more leverage defending their clients in the absence of breathalyzer test results. The act of refusal, though, comes with its own penalties.
Under “implied consent” laws in all states, when they apply for a driver’s license, motorists *give consent to field sobriety tests* and chemical tests to determine impairment. Should a driver refuse to submit to testing when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the driver is under the influence, the driver risks automatic license suspension along with possible further penalties.
Ohio breathalyzer test refusal:
Mandatory minimum 6-day jail sentence or three days in jail plus a 72-hour driver intervention program, and a fine, for those with a prior DUI conviction (20-day sentence if it’s the second DUI charge in six years)
Per se” laws in DUI or DWI cases generally establish that, once an individual is shown to have a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above .08 percent, that person will be considered intoxicated by law. In such circumstances, no further evidence of intoxication or impairment need be demonstrated for purposes of a DUI case. These days, all states have per se DUI laws that find any driver with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above .08 percent to be intoxicated.
The existence of these laws throughout the United States means that it is important for individuals who are drinking to realize that, regardless of how sober they themselves feel and behave, it is their BAC that matters in the eyes of the law once they get behind the wheel. Should it exceed the per se legal limit, they will legally be presumed to be impaired. These laws make it easier for the prosecution to establish that an individual was impaired, without requiring much on-scene evaluation such as sobriety testing and the like.
Still, these laws do not mean that all defendants who register a .08 BAC or higher face an “open and shut” scenario as far as their DUI case is concerned. For example, defendants can and do challenge everything from the validity of test results to the machines used to collect these results and the procedures used. A variety of other defenses in criminal DUI cases also exist, which can be raised before or during trial.”
http://dui.findlaw.com/dui/state-dui-law/ohio-dui-law.html
End Quote}
Mespo727272,
After reading your comment it is quite apparent that you’re an attorney and make your living getting idiots like Mecklenborg off. To your comment that the video is in favor of the defendant I think you are way off. If Mecklenborg understood so well why was he constantly argumenative with the officer? (I guess maybe that was the lawyer in him not thinking he has to comply with anything) that and the fact that he could barely get out of the car. Also, the officer only presented him with the three standardized test so your mention of the others was irrelevant and a waste of space. As a lawyer Mecklenborg should know the laws and know that the field sobriety test are optional the officer is not required to tell him that. If he refuses to take the certified test after being read the implied consent then its automatic arrest for refusal and a warrant for blood is obtained. No there was no erradic driving (yet). Heck the video segments that WLWT showed the woman in the car admitting that she knew he was drunk and shouldn’t have been driving that’s pretty incriminating right there. I think all of the officers actions were spot on and I’m glad he got a drunk off the street.