Case Name: City of Toledo, appellee v. Dietz, appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1965-06-30
Citations: 31 Ohio L.R. 114
Docket Number: 38753
Parties: City of Toledo, appellee v. Dietz, appellant.
Judges: Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Reporter; a weekly journal published in the interest of the legal profession in the state of Ohio
Volume: 31
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
Announced Wednesday, June 30.
38753.
City of Toledo, appellee v. Dietz, appellant.

Opinion:
Herbert, J-
1. Where a person charged with the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to the provisions of a municipal ordinance, voluntarily submits to a "Har-ger drunkometer test," during a 15-min-ute investigation at police headquarters, in the absence of any coercion and after being informed that the test is voluntary and that he is not required to answer any questions, there exists no deprivation of rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Four teenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States or Section 10, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio.
2. Where law enforcement officers communicate with the brother of a person charged with the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, there exists sufficient compliance with the provisions of. Section 2935.14, Revised Code, which • provides that accused must be furnished facilities to communicate with an attorney or other person for the purpose of obtaining an attorney.
Judgment affirmed.
Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.
O'Neill, J., dissenting.