Ohio's recently revised DUI law faces a wide variety of challenges on constitutional grounds. Professors Gifford and Friedman describe these constitutional arguments and evaluate their merit by considering both broader constitutional principles and persuasive precedents in jurisdictions with similar statutes. In addition to their analysis of the statute's constitutionality, Professors Gifford and Friedman explore other constitutional issues likely to arise from the enforcement of the statute including ones concerning the implied consent provision, breath tests and the use of motions in limine by defendants in drunk driving prosecutions.