Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. Gustafson
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 30, 1996No. Nos. 95-1377 and 95-1466; Nos. 95-1271, 95-1303, 95-1304, 95-1305 and 95-1307Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPatton, J.
I join with paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, but dissent from paragraphs three, four and five of the syllabus. Like Justice Cook, I believe double jeopardy is not implicated by the ALS statute, but wish to add some additional thoughts.
I agree with Justice Cook’s analysis that R.C. 4511.191 does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the in rem forfeiture of a driver’s license is neither punishment nor tied to criminal behavior. In my view, R.C. 4511.191 serves primarily the purpose of assisting the state in proving a drunk driving offense by enforcing a driver’s implied consent…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- State v. HochhauslerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Hoban v. RiceOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- United States v. Alberto Hernandez-FundoraCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- State v. StarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1970
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.