Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Repeat Drunk Drivers in Barry County, Michigan Get Minimum 30 days in Jail

Published on: March 2, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

A Barry County Judge has indicated that he’s going to start cracking down on repeat drunk drivers by giving them a minimum of 30 days in jail.

Judge Michael Shipper was appointed by Governor Snyder in 2011 and is already tough on first-time offenders. Now he says he’s ready to be even tougher on repeat drunk drivers. He’s indicated that the 30-day sentences could be spread out over 15 weekends.

In Michigan, a second offense drunk driving charge is appropriate only where the offender has a prior offense within the prior 7 years. If the prior offense is more than seven years old the new offense will be considered a first offense. However, the same is not true for those drivers with two prior drunk driving offenses on their record. Michigan has a lifetime look back for drivers with three or more total drunk driving convictions. These drivers are considered felons and may face up to five years in prison.

Trump Vows Possible Crack Down on Recreational Marijuana Use

Published on: March 1, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

Sean Spicer, Trump’s press secretary, stated recently Trump’s AG Jeff Sessions will do more to enforce federal marijuana laws. He particularly has his eyes on recreational use. This appears to be a significant change from the AG and the DOJ under former President Obama. Specifically, Spicer said that Trump would be taking legal action against states that have legalized recreational use.

It appears that Trump takes a different view relative to the use of medical marijuana. If this is true, then States like Michigan will be free to pursue regulations allowing the cultivation, use and sale of medical marijuana. Because Michigan’s new Medical Marijuana Licensed Facilities Act sets forth an appropriate regulatory scheme, it is unlikely that the new AG will take legal action in Michigan. The same may not be true of states with a less developed regulatory scheme.

The prior administration took a relatively hand’s off approach to marijuana, allowing states to pass laws making either medical or recreational marijuana use legal. Trump recently indicated he would allow States to be more autonomous in certain areas, such as the transgender bathroom issue in public schools. Trump’s position on marijuana contradicts this approach.

Michigan Marijuana Patients and Dispensaries Must Closely Adhere to Existing Law

Published on: March 1, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

Because Marijuana remains an illegal schedule one drug in Michigan, any patient or caregiver who does not closely comply with the Medical Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) risks being charged and prosecuted as an ordinary illegal drug user or illegal drug dealer. A new Michigan case entitled People v. Lewis, involves medical marijuana, and demonstrates exactly why this is true.

In this case, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of delivering marijuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(D)(iii). The defendant was charged as a common drug dealer, even though he thought he followed Michigan’s medical marijuana act.

Here the defendant was an employee at an Ingham County Michigan dispensary/provisioning center through which patrons could purchase medical marijuana. Undercover police officers visited the center and purchased marijuana from defendant simply by filling out an application. No officer presented a medical-marijuana card, and the defendant was not registered with the state as the officers’ caregiver.

Trump Plan Would Place Lansing Toxicology Lab Under Federal Control

Published on: February 27, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

President Trump’s Department of Justice has proposed a new Office of Forensic Science and Forensic Science Board within the DOJ. This new board would have governing authority over all of Michigan’s forensic labs, including the Toxicology lab located in Lansing. Nearly all drivers arrested for intoxicated driving and subjected to blood draws currently have their blood tested at this Lansing Toxicology lab. Consequently, this new change could impact more than 10,000 DUI cases each year in Michigan.

The new Department would be headed by a Director, who would be appointed by the President. The Director would report to the Attorney General. According to subsection b of the proposal, the mission of the new Forensic Science Division would be: to strengthen and promote the use of forensic science within the judicial system by supporting forensic science service providers, as they continually improve the validity, quality, and practice of forensic science through innovative solutions that focus on research and development, testing and evaluation, technology, information exchange, training, and capacity building for the forensic infrastructure.

One of the duties of the Director will be to work to ensure that appropriate accreditation, certification, standards, methods, best practices, and organizations exist for forensic disciplines.

I Was Arrested for Drunk Driving, Should I go to AA?

Published on: February 20, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

MI-OWI-Map-300x278
If you were arrested for drunk driving in Michigan, then you should talk to your lawyer about whether starting with a structured 12-step program such Alcoholics Anonymous, or AA, may help your case. While clearly the best known, AA is not the only 12-step program, and it may not be the best option for you.

Understanding 12-Step Programs:

A 12-step program is a structured support system designed to aid individuals in overcoming addiction, fostering personal development, and maintaining sobriety. Core principles include acknowledging powerlessness over the substance, seeking guidance from a higher power (interpreted personally), making amends, and supporting others in their recovery journey.

Must Field Sobriety Tests Follow Standards Prescribed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?

Published on: February 17, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

The answer is somewhat unclear because so far no Michigan court has specifically ruled that police officers must administer standardized field sobriety tests in accordance with protocol set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, a new law was recently passed in Michigan that suggests that the legislature wants substantial compliance with the NHTSA standards.

The new law, with an effective date of September, 2016, reads as follows:
257.62a “Standardized field sobriety test” defined.

Sec. 62a. “Standardized field sobriety test” means 1 of the standardized tests validated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A field sobriety test is considered a standardized field sobriety test under this section if it is administered in substantial compliance with the standards prescribed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

What it Means to “Operate” a Vehicle In the Context of a Michigan DUI Charge

Published on: February 16, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

In some situations, the police can charge you with drunk driving in Michigan even if the police never saw you driving your car. However, the legal analysis in these cases is very fact specific, and the law is quite complex. In some situations, courts have upheld convictions when the police never saw anyone operating the car. But in other cases, courts have held there was no operation. To understand why this difference exists, and why a court might allow such a non-witnessed drunk driving case to stand, you need know a few things about the drunk driving laws of Michigan.

To begin with, the crime of drunk driving is called OWI or “operating while intoxicated.” Michigan does not use the word “drive” so Michigan’s drunk driving law is not called driving under the influence (DUI), or driving while intoxicated (DWI). The word operate is much broader than the word drive. The Michigan Motor Vehicle Code defines “operate” or “operating” as “being in actual physical control of a vehicle” whether licensed or not. MCL 257.35a. Thus, the plain language of the statute requires that driver’s actions must establish “actual physical control” of the vehicle.[i] But the analysis doesn’t end there. What happens for example if a person is asleep or unconscious?

A question sometimes raised in this context is whether a sleeping or unconscious driver can be found to be in “actual physical control.” In these cases, which often have unique facts, the Michigan Supreme Court has expanded the term “operation” such that ‘operating’ is defined in terms of the danger the OUIL statute seeks to prevent: the collision of a vehicle being operated by a person under the influence of intoxicating liquor with other persons or property. Accordingly, “[o]nce a person using a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle has put the vehicle in motion, or in a position posing a significant risk of causing a collision, such a person continues to operate it until the vehicle is returned to a position posing no such risk.”[ii]

Role of Defense Lawyers in the Mitigation of Collateral Consequences

Published on: February 13, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

Collateral consequences are the loss of rights a person suffers after being convicted of a crime. They have previously been described as having the potential to cause “civil death.” Such consequences are different from the punishments that might be imposed by a judge as part of a criminal case. This is because collateral consequences are not found in criminal statutes. Instead, they often arise out of the myriad civil statutes or civil consequences that are triggered by the criminal conviction. This means that most collateral consequences require no judge to impose them, and they afford no opportunity for due process.

Most crimes are punishable by a statutorily allowed maximum period of prison or jail time. For example, a standard, first offense drunk driving in Michigan, carries with it the possibility of up to 93 days in jail. However, for cases involving a test result of .17 or above, the maximum penalty increases to 180 days. In a drunk driving causing death, charged as second-degree murder, is punishable by life in the state prison, or any term of years. These specific statutory maximums are significant because a criminal lawyer advising her client about a conviction can usually predict, at least within a range, the actual time a client will spend behind bars. The same is most certainly not true of collateral consequences.

A case addressing this is United States v. Nesbeth, 188 F.Supp.3d 179 (2016). Nesbeth was convicted of importation of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The advisory guidelines would have allowed a sentence of between 33 and 41 years in prison, but because of the significant collateral consequences, the judge saw fit to give him no jail at all, meaning straight probation. The opinion explaining why should be required reading for all criminal defense attorneys.

Driving Under Influence of Marijuana and Implied Consent in Michigan

Published on: January 24, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

If you’ve used medical marijuana in Michigan, drive your car, and are stopped by the police, you can be charged with OWI or “operating while intoxicated.” This is because Michigan’s drunk driving statute, found at Michigan Compiled Laws 257.625, indicates in part as follows:

As used in this section, “operating while intoxicated” means any of the following:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance.

National Movement Toward Lowering the Legal BAC Limit Begins in Utah

Published on: January 4, 2017 | by Patrick Barone

A Utah lawmaker is backing a change in Utah’s DUI law lowering the legal limit to .05%. Utah’s current legal limit is .08%. This change would make Utah the first state in the Union to reduce the legal limit from .085 to .055. In 2005 Michigan was the last state to reduce the legal limit to .08. Michigan’s legal limit goes back up to .10 in 2018.

The legal limit is currently .08% in all 50 states. This uniform legal limit came as part of a Congress -approved amendment to the 2001 transportation appropriations bill that tied the legal limit into highway funds. In other words, a .08% legal limit was a condition precedent to a state receiving highway funds from the national government. However, there appears to be no reason states can’t reduce the limit even further, and there is little doubt that after Utah many other states will follow suit.

The average drinker need only consume two units of alcohol to be at a .05. A unit of alcohol is one 12 oz. 5% beer, one 6 oz. 12% wine or one shot (1.5 oz.) of 80 proof liquor. A unit of alcohol is also sometimes called a standard drink. Each standard drink will raise a person’s blood alcohol level .025 per drink. The average man eliminates alcohol at .015% and the average woman eliminates at .018 per hour.

Michigan Criminal Defense Law Blog

Understanding 12-Step Programs: