Keith Corbett to Focus on Defense of Federal Financial Fraud Crimes
Effectively immediately, Keith Corbett, Senior Trial Lawyer at the Barone Defense Firm, will be focusing his practice on the Federal defense of complex financial crimes, including, prescription fraud, billing fraud and Medicare fraud. He will also continue to handle other matters at the Firm, such as the defense of intoxicated driving cases and other state crimes.

Prior to joining the Barone Defense Firm in 2013, Keith had a long career as a prosecutor which began at the State Court level with the Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney‘s office in 1974. However, much of Keith’s wide breadth of knowledge and experience was gained in the Federal Courts while prosecuting the major organized crime families in Detroit. These prosecutions were most often based on various proven violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1980, also known simply as the RICO Act.  This Act defines and sets forth various kinds of prohibited activity and is most often applicable when such activity is performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The act also provides for criminal penalties. Among other things, RICO allows for the prosecution of leaders for crimes they ordered others to do, such as murder or other unlawful activities related to the criminal syndicate, such as various financial crimes.

During his tenure with the U.S. Attorney’s Organized Crime Unit, Keith was involved in the prosecutions of 17 members and associates of the Detroit La Cosa Nostra (LCN), and some of the most well-known figurefederal criminal lawyers involved in Detroit’s organized crime, including the Zerilli, Tocco, and Beckham families.

Must a Licensed Health Care Worker Report a DUI to LARA?

Yes, Michigan law requires all licensed health care workers to self-report all criminal convictions to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). This reporting requirement includes all intoxicated driving offenses.  Additionally, Michigan law provides that clerks of the court must also report a licensed health care worker’s drunk driving conviction to LARA. Thus, one way or the other, LARA will learn of the conviction, and will take whatever action they deem appropriate.

Specifically, Michigan Compiled Laws Sec. 333.16222(3) indicates as follows:

(3) A licensee or registrant shall notify the department of any criminal conviction within 30 days after the date of the conviction.

Supreme Court to Rule: Can Unconscious Driver Consent to Blood Draw?

On January 11th the United States Supreme Court indicated that they would hear a case arising out of the state of Wisconsin involving the constitutionality of a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious person. The name of the case is Mitchell v. Wisconsin and the State Court’s opinion is found at State v. Mitchell, 383 Wis.2d 192, 914 N.W.2d 151, 2018 WI 84 (Sup. Ct. Wisc., 2018).  This state court opinion contains the following facts and analysis; first, the defendant drank to the point of passing out, meaning he was voluntarily rendered unconscious. A roadside breath test suggested that the defendant had a breath alcohol concentration of 0.24.  The blood test came back slightly lower at 0.222. After the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the warrantless blood test, the defendant asked the United States Supreme Court (USSC) to hear the case.

In analyzing if the warrantless blood draw from the unconscious person was constitutionally permissible, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed both prior USSC cases of McNeely and Birchfield and focused on the provisions of the state’s implied consent law. The state court found that the search was permissible because the defendant’s self-induced physical condition did not render Wisconsin’s Implied Consent presumption unreasonable under the totality of circumstances.  This was based on four factors: (1) by exercising the privilege of driving on Wisconsin highways, the defendant’s conduct demonstrated consent to provide breath, blood or urine samples if law enforcement had probable cause to believe that he had operated his vehicle while intoxicated, (2) the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated, (3) the defendant  chose to drink sufficient alcohol to produce unconsciousness, and; (4) by his conduct, the defendant forfeited the statutory opportunity to assert that he had “withdrawn consent” he previously gave. This opinion suggests that had the driver, prior to becoming unconscious, manifested any intent to withdraw his consent, then the outcome would have been different.

By deciding to hear the case, the USSC has signaled their intention to rule on the constitutionality of the Wisconsin decision/law. This is interesting because there is a split of authority on this issue at the State Court level. In fact, Wisconsin is among 29 states that allow warrantless blood draws from persons who are unconscious.  The remaining states have either not ruled on the issue, or do not allow them.

Can Off Duty Officer Concealed Carry in Court?

The answer will depend on the written security policy of the individual court.  Police officers and other law enforcement officers are advised to check with the specific court prior to attempting to conceal carry.

Michigan law provides that any person with a CPL may carry anywhere in the State of Michigan unless otherwise precluded.  Most of the areas that are prohibited carry zones are set forth in Michigan Compiled Laws sec. 28.425o. Subsection 5 of this law sets forth the people who are exempt from these restrictions and who may therefore otherwise carry in weapons free zones. Provided certain licensing requirements are met, exempted persons include the following:

A retired police officer, retired law enforcement officer, or retired federal law enforcement officer, a private investigator or private detective, a corrections officer, a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer, a member of a sheriff’s posse, a parole, probation, or corrections officer, a state court judge, a court officer, a peace officer.

Operating an Unlicensed Marihuana Facility Now a Crime in Michigan

Effective January 1, 2019, it is now a crime to operate a marihuana facility in Michigan without a license.  The new law was signed by Governor Snyder on December 28, 2019 and was part of a host of changes made to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Licensing Act (MMMLA) just prior to the Governor leaving office. The new section is found at MCL 333.27407a, and provides that, depending on the type of violation, the person who unlawfully operates a marihuana facility is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Licensing Act creates five different kinds of marihuana licenses.  The term “marihuana facility” is defined as a location at which a licensee is licensed to operate under this act. This term therefore includes a facility where marihuana is grown, processed, tested or sold (provisioned). This term could also theoretically apply to a facility used to house trucks or otherwise used to do business as a marihuana transporter.

According to this new law, it is a now a crime for a person, including a corporation, to hold itself out as a marihuana facility if the person does not hold a license to operate that marihuana facility or if the person’s license to operate that marihuana facility is suspended, revoked, lapsed, or void, or was fraudulently obtained or transferred to the person.

Reinstate License Online Michigan | Lawyers to Help Get License Back

If your license was revoked due to multiple OWI convictions, then a license revocation lawyer will help maximize the chances of getting your license back. It is possible to do it yourself, but this is not recommended.

Don’t let your prior bad experience with lawyers keep you from hiring one this time.If you want your driver license reinstated, your best chance involves hiring a Michigan license reinstatement lawyer. Here’s why:

What’s the Difference Between OWI and OUIL?

OWI and OUIL are acronyms describing two different ways a prosecutor can prove the crime of drunk driving in Michigan.  The acronym OWI refers to the more general crime, while OUIL describes a specific way to prove a specific crime which is that of drunk driving.  In other words, the acronym OUIL relates to a certain kind of proof at trial. Either way, both OWI and OUIL ultimately relate to the same crime.

This crime can be found in Michigan law at MCL 257.625, which sets forth all the different ways intoxicated driving can be proved.  The general term for intoxicated driving is OWI which stands for operating while intoxicated.  The crime of OWI really consists of several different crimes depending on the type of intoxicating substance present.  Thus, OWI can describe intoxicated driving crimes involving alcohol, prescription drugs, and non-prescriptions drugs like cocaine or even marijuana.

When it comes to intoxication by alcohol, the acronym OUIL applies to one of the two ways the crime of OWI can be proved in court.  This stands for Operating Under the Influence of Liquor.  To prove this crime, the prosecutor will often use what is called the observation evidence.  This usually relates to all the evidence other than the breath or blood test.  Observation evidence is usually broken down into the parts, and these come from the three phases of the drunk driving investigation.

Posted In:
Published on:
Updated:

Michigan Recreational Marijuana Users Advised to Avoid Firearm Possession

Now that Michigan has legalized the recreational use of marijuana, many citizens want to know how they can possess and use recreational marijuana without running afoul of the law.  It will take many years for the legislators and courts to sort this all out, and in the meanwhile, recreational users may unknowingly place themselves at risk for criminal prosecution or other adverse legal consequences.  One area that is particularly rife with such risks is the combination of marijuana and firearms.

An example of this this risk relates to the possession or use of marijuana while also being in the possession of a firearm. While this article focuses on State law there is also an interplay between Federal law and marijuana, and this interplay is the subject of a different article on this site.

As it relates to State law, Michigan gun owners should know that it is unlawful in Michigan to possess a firearm under the influence of alcohol, drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs. There are two separate laws that apply to this scenario, one of which appears in the criminal code and one of which appears in the firearms statute. Both contain provisions applicable to the possession of a firearm under the influence of marijuana, but there are important differences as well.

DUI Defendant’s Constitutional Right to Confront Chemical Test Remains Clear as Mud

In the past decade, the United States Supreme Court has issued several opinions addressing a DUI defendant’s right to confront a breath or blood test used by the prosecution to prove intoxication at trial. In legal terms, the word “confront” essentially means cross-examine. An example of this confrontation right in the context of a drunk driving case would be the right to cross-examine the police officer who administered a breath test, or the forensic analyst who prepared a blood sample for testing.  This issue came before the USSC again in 2018.  The name of the case is Stuart v. Alabama.  Unfortunately, the USSC declined the opportunity to clarify this issue, and by order dated November 19, 2018, denied the defendant’s petition for review (certiorari).

However, there was a dissenting opinion written by Justice Gorsuch and joined by Justice Sotomayor.  This opinion contains some interesting information.  Perhaps picking up the cross-examination baton laid down by Justice Scalia, Justice Gorsuch refers to cross-examination as “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”  Furthermore, that:

Cross-examination is an essential guard against such mischief and mistake and the risk of false convictions.  Even the most well-meaning analyst may lack essential training, contaminate a sample, or err during the testing process.

Can I Have a CPL and be a Medical or Recreational Marijuana User?

No, according to Federal law, you are not allowed to both use medical or recreational marijuana and have a Michigan Concealed Pistol License (CPL).  This is due to a conflict in state and federal law.

Michigan is not the only state facing this dilemma. For example, a man in Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit seeking clarity regarding gun ownership rights.  According to the HuffPost,

A medical marijuana prescriber and patient is challenging President Donald Trump’s administration over a federal statute barring cannabis users from purchasing or owning firearms, even when they take the drug legally pursuant to state law.

Contact Information