Michigan OWI Case Wins

Huntington Woods vs. D.H.

Charge: Unresolved OUIL
Court: 45B District Court, Oak Park, Michigan

After moving away from Michigan, our client was unable to obtain a license in his new state due to two unresolved drunk driving cases in Michigan.

We appeared with the client for an arraignment on a bench warrant from one of the arrests, where we were successful in negotiating on our client’s behalf. The court agreed to dismiss the OUIL charge if our client would plead guilty to a civil infraction of careless driving. The client had to pay a small fine and only received three points on his driving record.

Result: OUL charge dropped; client pled to careless driving

State of Michigan vs. B.W.

Charges: Two Separate OUIL Charges
Court: 42nd District Court New Baltimore, Michigan

The client was arrested for OUIL on March 10 and again on May 8 of the same year in the same jurisdiction. In both instances, his vehicle had been observed crossing the centerline and during both stops, the client had difficulty with the field sobriety tests and maintaining his balance.

During jury selection for the first case, we negotiated a plea bargain with the prosecutor wherein the client would plead to one impaired driving charge and one reckless driving charge. Our client was only facing one alcohol-related offense. He did not have to serve any jail time and only lost his license for 90 days.

Result: Pled to one alcohol-related offense and one reckless driving offense

City of Auburn Hills vs. B.P.

Charge: OUIL 2nd Offense
Court: 52-3 District Court, Rochester

The client was pulled over after police observed his vehicle crossing the white line multiple times on the interstate. The officer stated that his eyes were bloodshot, his speech was slurred and that he had trouble with his balance. The client failed all but one of the field sobriety tests and was arrested.

The case proceeded to trial, and during jury selection we pointed out some of the weaknesses in the case against our client. Just before the arresting officer’s testimony, the prosecutor offered to dismiss the OWI in exchange for a plea to a lesser charge.

Result: OWI charge dismissed; client pled to careless driving

People vs. M.J.B.


Charge: Implied Consent Violation
Court: DLAD Hearing in Southfield, Hearing Officer Merian

The client was arrested for OUIL after police stopped him for speeding, traveling eastbound in a northbound lane and crossing the center line. He refused the breath test and was also charged with a civil implied consent violation.

We immediately filed an appeal of the implied consent charge. During the hearing, the arresting officer said that he offered a breath test, which the client refused. We argued that because the officer did not provide any evidence that our client was read his rights he did not meet the required burden of proof. The Hearing Officer accepted our argument and found in favor of our client.

Result: Charges dismissed

State of Michigan vs. S.W.


Charge: Felony OUIL, 3rd Offense
Court: 52-2 District Court, Clarkston

Police pulled the client over after he left a bar. The client admitted to drinking and did not perform well on the field sobriety tests. He was charged with OWIL and released. A felony warrant was then issued because officers believed he had two prior alcohol-related offenses on his record within the past 10 years.

We set to work and discovered that the prosecution had the wrong conviction date and that the client’s last OWI was more than 10 years earlier. The prosecutor agreed to let the client plead guilty for a first offense in exchange for time served and only a 30-day license suspension.

Result: Charge reduced to first offense OWI; no felony penalties incurred

Secretary of State vs. G.B.

Charge: Implied Consent Violation
Court: DLAD in Flint, Hearing Officer Kronk

Our client was stopped after speeding and driving erratically. He was arrested for OWI after failing the field sobriety tests and when he refused to take the breath test was charged also with a civil implied consent violation.

At the implied consent hearing, our client testified that he was not allowed to speak with an attorney, even though he requested one repeatedly. We argued that this was a violation of our client’s rights and that the officer did not follow proper procedure in establishing the burden of proof. The Hearing Officer agreed and ruled in our client’s favor.

Result: Charge dismissed