Bucyrus

The Ohio Disciplinary Counsel has filed a complaint alleging misconduct by the City of Bucyrus Law Director.

The first charge alleged that he struck a utility pole while driving his orange Honda SUV. He drove away with a “large chunk of wood presumably from the utility pole protruding from the passenger side door and panel” of the vehicle.

He refused a breath test and his parents picked him up from jail

On August 2, 2022, respondent pled guilty to one count of OVI, R.C. 4511.19(A)(1). In return for respondent’s plea, the prosecutor dismissed the OVI Refusal charge, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2).

Part of the sentence was a limitation on driving privileges but

On or about September 2, 2022, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Jonathan Lauer observed respondent driving a 2013 Jeep northbound on Spring Street in the City of Bucyrus.

He again declined a breath test and was charged with a probation violation as well as driving under the influence

On or about November 1, 2022, respondent admitted the probation violation in his First OVI. Judge Tyack extended respondent’s probation to November 1, 2024.

On the same day, respondent pled guilty to OVI in the Second OVI matter. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the prosecutor dismissed the remaining charges.

He was scheduled to prosecute a driving under suspension offense but allegedly

Approximately ten minutes before trial, respondent telephoned the court clerk. During the call, the clerk had difficulty understanding respondent as his speech was heavily slurred. The clerk surmised that respondent wanted to dismiss the charges, as respondent indicated that he would call off the police officer.

The clerk advised Magistrate O’Leary of the phone call. Magistrate O’Leary, who was presiding over the bench trial, treated respondent’s call as a request for a continuance, denied it, then dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.

That same day, respondent’s probation officer made an unannounced visit to respondent’s home to administer an alcohol use test. Respondent tested positive for alcohol consumption.

As a result, respondent has been ordered again to wear a SCRAM device (see ¶ 32) and he has been charged with a probation violation in the Second OVI case.

(Mike Frisch)