DUI Defense

Michigan Drunk Driving Case Dismissed After Anonymous 911 Call Ruled Insufficient to Support Traffic Stop

Published on: January 28, 2022 | by Patrick Barone

Michigan drivers are sometimes stopped under suspicion of intoxicated driving after a concerned citizen calls 911. The validity of these traffic stops are highly fact-specific, and depending on exactly what is reported to 911, the stop may or may not be sufficient to support a DUI conviction.

One case in Michigan where the DUI traffic stop was deemed to be invalid, and the drunk driving case dismissed, is People v. Pagano, 507 Mich. 26, 967 N.W.2d 590 (2021). In this intoxicated driving case the Michigan Supreme Court specifically found that the traffic stop based only on the 911 was insufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion that the driver was drunk. Because the stop was therefore legally invalid, the Court had no other choice but to dismiss the case outright.

In Pagano, the 911 caller reported that they had observed a woman driving while yelling at her kids and generally behaving in an obnoxious manner. While the caller indicated that they believed the driver was intoxicated, no other information was provided in support of this contention. However, the caller did provide much identifying information relative to the car being driven, including the license plate number, the make model and color of the car, and the direction the vehicle was traveling.

Penalties Michigan’s Super Drunk High BAC .17%

Published on: January 1, 2022 | by Patrick Barone

Michigan’s Super Drunk Driving Law went into effect on October 31, 2010. It created enhanced punitive and driver license sanctions for Michigan drunk drivers with a Bodily Alcohol Content (BAC) of .17 gerams % or above. It only applies to first offense drunk driving as penalties and driver license sanctions for second or subsequent offenses remain unchanged and more punitive than for super drunk driving. This is true even for repeat offenders with BACs at or above .17 grams %.

What Are the Penalties for High BAC Super Drunk Driving in Michigan?

Michigan drivers found or pleading guilty to a High BAC super drunk driving face an array of serious punishments and consequences, including potentially more time in jail and less time on the road.

Common Michigan Police DUI Arrest Phases

Published on: January 1, 2022 | by Patrick Barone

Most people arrested for drunk driving in Michigan first encounter the police as part of a traffic stop. The traffic stop might be for something unrelated, such as speeding, or it might be because of something more commonly associated with intoxicated driving, such as weaving. Either way, the police investigation in a DUI/OWI case begins as soon as the officer begins to observe your car.

Michigan DUI attorney Patriick Barone covers the entire State of Michigan.

Phase 1 – Vehicle in Motion Clues (Speeding, Weaving)

Law enforcement thinks of this as the “vehicle in motion” phase of their investigation. During this phase the officer will be taking notes about your driving so that they can justify the stop, and will also take notes relative to how you respond to their stop signal. In other words, what did you do when the police activated their flashing lights? Did you pull over normally? Or were you slow to respond? Were any other traffic violations observed? Did you stop inappropriately, or try to flee, etc.

Why Would a Jury Choose to Nullify the Law?

Published on: December 2, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

As previously explained, jury nullification occurs when a jury fails to follow the instructions of the court and instead returns a verdict contrary to those instructions. UN Appeals judge and constitutional law expert Geoffrey Robertson suggests that an independent jury can disregard the strict letter of the law set forth in these instructions and return their verdict of acquittal due to feelings of “sympathy or humanity” or simply based on common sense.

Jury instructions themselves can be part of the problem. Jury instructions are summations of the law and reflect the litigants’ best efforts to distill often complex laws in chunks that can be understood and applied by the jurors when evaluating the facts presented to them at trial.

However, when it comes to criminal cases and the tacit but often necessary application of constitutional law principals, these “chunked summations” of the law are rife with potential pitfalls. According to Duke University School of Law Professor Brandon Garrett, the use of constitutional rights in jury instructions—and in evidentiary practice more generally—is a subject that deserves far more attention in the bar and in scholarship.[i]

Understanding and Defending a SCRAM Violation in Michigan

Published on: November 20, 2021 | by Michael Boyle

Note: what follows is a summary recapitulation of Michigan DUI Lawyer Mike Boyle’s CDAM presentation. Lawyers wishing to know more about how to defend an alleged SCRAM violation may wish to review these materials for more in-depth information:

Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring, or SCRAM, is an alcohol monitoring tether that is used throughout the State of Michigan by courts, judges, and probation officers to monitor abstinence of defendants and probationers from alcohol consumption. There are mixed views regarding the use of SCRAM as a tool to assist in sobriety and for abstinence, but more concerning is the reliability and usefulness of this device.

What is a SCRAM?

How to Defend an Alleged SCRAM Violation According to Boyle

Published on: November 16, 2021 | by Barone Defense Firm

Barone Defense Firm Partner and Senior Trial Attorney Michael J. Boyle recently was one of the guest presenters at the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan (CDAM) Fall Conference at Boyne Mountain. The annual seminar was attended by hundreds of criminal defense attorneys from throughout the State of Michigan. CDAM is one of the largest and well-respected membership groups in the State and is dedicated to the improvement of criminal advocacy across all practice areas in the criminal justice system.

Boyle accepted the invitation to speak and was the only attorney that presented on two topics. He presented on Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring, known as SCRAM, and he also did a presentation on Self-Defense and understanding Michigan’s Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrines.

Boyle has enjoyed the opportunity over the last several years to be part of the process of educating and teaching other lawyers the complex understanding and best practice techniques in representing clients on multiple disciplines. He has presented on numerous occasions for the Michigan Association of OWI Attorneys (MIAOWIA), the State Bar of Michigan Marijuana Law Section, CDAM, and the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (OACDL).

How Sober Cannabis Users are Wrongfully Convicted of Intoxicated Driving

Published on: June 16, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

Police in Michigan continue to use unreliable chemical and field sobriety tests when investigating drivers suspected of using cannabis. This can lead to sober cannabis users being wrongfully convicted of intoxicated driving. This is because the tools used for decades to investigate drunk driving cases simply do not translate well to the investigation of drivers believed to be under the influence of marijuana.

These conclusions are drawn from a 2020 research study conducted by the National Institute of Justice. This federally funded research study resulted in the production of a final written overview which was subsequently submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. The title of the overview is Differences in Cannabis Impairment and its Measurement Due to Route of Administration. (Hereafter “NIJ Study”).

What did the NIJ Study Conclude?

Community Caretaker Search Warrant Exception Not Applicable to the Home

Published on: May 21, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

The United States Supreme Court has recently ruled that the community caretaker exception to the search warrant requirement does not apply to a person’s home. The name of the case is Caniglia v. Strom, and in a unanimous opinion the Court found that guns seized by the police after entering a home without a warrant were not admissible in evidence on the basis of the community caretaker exception.

The Caniglia case involved a married couple who had been arguing in their residence. During the fight the husband grabbed his gun and told his wife to shoot him. The wife took possession of the gun, and put it away, hiding the ammunition. She later left the house to stay at a hotel, and because she was worried that her husband might suicide, she called the police. The wife then met the police back at their home where the husband had remained. The police instructed the wife to stay in the car as they interviewed the husband.

The police believed that the husband posed a danger to himself and called for an ambulance to take him for a psychiatric evaluation. He claimed the police agreed that if he went to the hospital, they would not take his guns whereas the police claimed he consented to a search of his home. The wife, believing the officers that her husband had consented, then guided the police to where the guns were inside the home, and the police took possession of them. No arrest was made, and no charges were brought against the husband. The guns were eventually returned, but the Caniglia’s filed a lawsuit, nevertheless, claiming a violation of Section 1983 under the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In the lawsuit the Caniglia’s sought money damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

How Long Should a Marijuana User Wait Before Safely Operating a Car?

Published on: May 7, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

It can be difficult for a marijuana user to subjectively assess their level of impairment. Even worse, there is no way for a marijuana user to objectively evaluate their level impairment. So, after consuming marijuana medically or recreationally, how can a marijuana user make a safe decision about driving?

Before we get to that question, let’s do a quick review of Michigan’s OWI laws as it relates to drugs. In Michigan, you can be charged (and potentially convicted) if you are either impaired or intoxicated by alcohol, drugs, or any combination thereof. Specifically, Michigan’s OWI law references impairment or intoxication caused by alcohol, controlled substance or “other intoxicating substance.” See Michigan Compiled Laws Sec. 257.625.

Notably, the statute does not define either the word intoxicated or impaired, leaving that factual determination to the fact finder, which is usually a jury of 6 or 12 individuals, depending on if the case is a misdemeanor or a felony. To assist the jury in reaching this determination they will be given several standard jury instructions.

Michigan DUI Case Based on Anonymous 911 Call Dismissed

Published on: April 25, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

In the case of People v. Pagano, the Michigan Supreme Court has indicated that a traffic stop based only on an anonymous 911 call is invalid. This ruling affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of both the child endangerment drunk driving and open intoxicants in a motor vehicle charges.

As the Pagano opinion indicates, the police received information from central dispatch that a woman was obnoxious and yelling at her children and appeared to be intoxicated. The 911 caller also provided identifying information about the vehicle driven by the ostensibly intoxicated woman, including the license plate number and make and model of the car.

The Michigan Supreme Court, in the unanimous Pagano opinion, held that information provided to and by the officer failed to establish a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” either that a traffic violation had occurred or that criminal activity was afoot. While the Court acknowledged that the 911 caller was able to appropriately identify the individual involved and the car being driven by her, the tip still did not give rise to anything more than, at best, an “inchoate or unparticularized suspicion” of criminal activity. Otherwise, there was nothing in the record to suggest that the police officer making the traffic stop corroborated the 911 caller’s mere assertion that the driver was drunk. There was no bad driving observed by the police officer, and the stop was based only on the information provided to the 911 caller. After all, said the Court, parents can obnoxiously yell at their children without being drunk, and the 911 called also did not indicate that any bad driving was observed.