Articles Posted in DUI Defense

How Do I Find a Top Rated Drunk Driving Lawyer in Michigan?

Michigan DUI lawyer Patrick Barone knows Michigan DUI law and how to beat a DUI.If you’ve been arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, also called DUI/OWI in Michigan, then you’re looking at potentially severe penalties. Your driving privileges can be suspended or revoked causing you to lose your drivers license and your ability to drive.

For many kinds of drunk driving cases, you’re also looking at the real possibility of jail time. Even if this is your first DUI arrest, you’ll want to find a top rated drunk driving lawyer in Michigan.

With marijuana use on the rise in Michigan more and more drivers are found to have marijuana in their system or to even be intoxicated from using marijuana containing products. This is exactly what happened in a causing death case recently decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals. The name of the case is People v. Baase.  In this case, the driver was not intoxicated but was he was driving on a suspended license.  The victim on the other hand had THC in her system.  The defense attorney argued that the accident would not have happened but-for the victim’s diminished capacity to “react to the world around her.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals did not agree with the defense attorney’s arguments and found that the victim’s THC was not relevant.  It is not clear from the opinion if the victim had used recreational or medical marijuana. And while this case did not involve an intoxicated driver, the ruling would likely have been the same whether a DUI driver who caused death or serious injury was under the influence of alcohol, marijuana or both.

What were the Facts of this Suspended License Causing Death Case?

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.

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.

In a Drunk Driving Investigation Must Police Read Me My Rights?

Yes, when you’ve been stopped for drunk driving the police must read you your rights.  In fact, the police may be required to read to you three separate sets of rights; one related to the roadside or preliminary breath test (PBT), the second set of rights related to the second breath test at the station, and under certain circumstances, the police must read to you your Miranda rights prior to questioning you.  Each of these sets of rights is discussed below.

Preliminary Test Rights.

According to the Michigan State Police Preliminary Breath Test Manual, the following rights should be read to a person before asking them to submit to a roadside breath test:

Michigan law requires you to submit to a preliminary breath test upon request of a peace officer.  Your refusal to submit as requested shall result in your being charged with a civil infraction with a penalty of up to a $100.00 fine.

Prosecutors Stop Using Results from Improperly Calibrated Breath Test Machines

Prosecutors across the state of Massachusetts have stopped using breath test results obtained during drunk driving arrests for tens of thousands of motorists between 2011 and 2017.  The reason is that defense attorneys representing the drivers discovered that breath test machines throughout the state were improperly calibrated.  If was further discovered that state officials tried to hide this fact from both prosecutors as well as defense attorneys.  During the litigation defense attorneys representing the alleged drunk drivers learned that the Massachusetts State Police Breath Testing Unit had withheld hundreds of documents showing a far higher calibration failure rate than had been reported.  These documents were withheld even after they had been ordered by a judge.

Breath test and computer forensics expert Thomas Workman was involved in the case and was instrumental in helping the defense attorneys uncover the fraud, which included withholding several hundred calibration worksheets the police kept documenting their work.  These calibration sheets collectively showed an unreasonably high calibration failure rate.  Mr. Workman also determined that the calibration protocol the State Police claimed to operate under did not exist. Because of this ongoing litigation, an agreement was reached whereby older breath test results will no longer be used as evidence.  Cases where an accused has already been convicted may pursue an appeal, but only if they can show that their plea or conviction was based only on the breath test, and not on other evidence, such as failed field sobriety tests or erratic driving.  For more information, see “Tainted breathalyzer results could force new trials” Salem News, August 16, 2018.

Although this litigation transpired in Massachusetts and involved a Draeger 9510 breath test machine, this does not mean that it has no relevance in Michigan.  Like Massachusetts, Michigan also has no calibration protocol. There are administrative rules covering calibration checks, which must be performed once per calendar week.  This rule, which can be found at Tests for Breath Alcohol Admin R. R 325.2653, which reads in part as follows: [A]n appropriate class operator who has been certified in accordance with R 325.2658 shall verify an evidential breath alcohol test instrument for accuracy at least once each calendar week, or more frequently as the department may require.  Notice the word “calibration” does not appear here.  A second paragraph from this administrative rule also indicates that Michigan’s breath test machines “shall be inspected, verified for accuracy, and certified as to their proper working order within 120 days of the previous inspection by either an appropriate class operator who has been certified in accordance with R 325.2658 or a manufacturer-trained representative approved by the department.” While calibration can be performed as part of this 120-day inspection, again, the word “calibration” does not appear within this administrative rule.  In fact, the only place the word “calibrate” appears within the whole of the administrative rules is in Table One of Tests for Breath Alcohol Admin R. 325.2658, wherein it indicates that only Class VIB operators can calibrate evidential breath test machines.  There is, however, no description of how such calibration is to be effectuated. Worksheets from the 120-day inspections can be obtained through discovery, yet such worksheets also contain no information relative to the way such calibration was conducted.

Am I Eligible for Sobriety Court?

Many courts throughout Michigan employ an alternative form of sentencing for drunk drivers that emphasize treatment over punishment. Collectively, this approach to sentencing is called sobriety court.  Such courts utilize a 2011 Michigan statute codified in Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.304.  This law established new procedures and sobriety court participation provides advantages not available with traditional sentencing.  Eligibility to participate in a sobriety court program varies depending on the location of your arrest and the court where your case is presiding. Sobriety courts are only available to repeat offenders arrested after 2011.  Some courts also impose residency requirements, meaning the offender must live within the jurisdiction of the court.

Sobriety courts are not available in all jurisdictions. The admission into sobriety court is at the discretion of the Judge presiding over the sobriety court. You will only be admitted into sobriety court if you are able to demonstrate a strong commitment to sobriety. If you are considering sobriety court it is best to discuss the specific requirements of your court with your lawyer.

In the sobriety court environment, the judge unofficially acts as a recovery group facilitator.  In addition to the judge, who presides over the official sobriety court sessions, you will also be involved with someone from the prosecutor’s office, a defense advisor, one or more probation officers, including the probation supervisor, and a variety of treatment providers.  All of this takes place in a non-adversarial context and is far less formal than typical court proceedings.  Most of the courts that use this model require a minimum of 18 months of supervision.  The intensity of the probation, including the amount of alcohol and drug testing, support meetings, etc., is greatest at the beginning of the probation period and is gradually reduced as you demonstrate your ability to stay in compliance with the terms of your probation and have demonstrated the ability to maintain your ongoing sobriety.

After you’ve been arrested for DUI/OWI in Michigan the next step will be for the arresting officer(s) to prepare a narrative written police report, including any supplemental discovery materials. Depending on the nature of the office, this report and investigation will include a description of the basis for the initial police contact, usually a traffic stop, a description of the entire roadside investigation, including your performance on any field sobriety tasks, the results of any chemical tests, copies of any search warrants, one or more video recordings, and copies of any witness statements.  If there was an accident, and injury or death occurred, then the police reports may include an accident reconstruction, medical records, and the coroner’s report relative to cause of death.

Once these reports and materials have been signed off on by the senior officer in charge, they will be forwarded to the prosecuting attorney.  At this time the prosecutor will review your prior record, and the facts of the case, to determine what charges should be issued.  If you were issued an appearance ticket, these final charges may or may not be the same.  The prosecutor will then prepare an arrest warrant which will be issued by the court, and this, or the appearance ticket, will start the court-related steps.

The first court-related step will be the arraignment. The purpose of the arraignment is for you to appear before the court and learn of the charges you are facing.  The court will also set your bond, including any conditions to your bond. Provided you can make bond, you will leave the courthouse with a new date to appear.  At this point the steps will depend on if you are charged with a misdemeanor or felony.

What is Michigan’s Under 21 Zero Tolerance Law?

You are a drunk driver if you are under 21 years of age in Michigan, drink any amount of alcohol and then drive a car.  This is called the Michigan zero-tolerance drunk driving law. To fully understand this law, it is important to know how “any amount of alcohol” is defined.  Michigan’s Compiled Laws 257.625(6)(a) and (b) provide as follows:

As used in this subsection, “any bodily alcohol content” (BAC) means either having an alcohol content of 0.02 grams or more but less than 0.08 grams or having the presence of any alcohol within a person’s body resulting from the consumption of alcoholic liquor.

If you are under 21 years of age, and have an alcohol content of .08 or more, then you will be charged with an “adult” drunk driving, which carries greater punishments and a more draconian driver license sanction.

How Much Will a DUI Lawyer Cost?

There is at least a ten-fold difference in the amounts Michigan lawyers charge to handle a first offense drunk driving case. Fees usually start at around $1,500.00 for a newer less experienced lawyer.  From there, fees increase to as much as $15,000 – $25,000.00, including trial, for a top DUI lawyer.  Where death or serious injury is involved, fees can be even higher.

With such a wide range of fees you may wonder if it is worth spending more to hire a great lawyer?  For some people the answer is clearly yes while for others the answer is more elusive.  Either way, it’s a personal decision that depends on many factors. Before making the investment in a top DUI lawyer, you may wish to consider the following questions:

Is the Lawyer Available to Answer my Questions? If you’re spending a lot of money for a lawyer then you should expect plenty of communication.  Facing a criminal charge can make you feel like you are standing on the edge of an abyss staring into the great chasm of the great unknown.  Your attorney will be your guide helping to bring order into the chaos you are facing. Consequently, when needed, you should have an easy ability to contact your lawyer without delay or hassle.  No lawyer is going to be forever available, and consideration should be given for time spent in court and handling other client’s cases.  Nevertheless, you should expect to be in contact within a reasonable amount of time under most circumstances.  A good way to determine if the lawyer you’re considering will be good with communication after you’ve paid them is to start paying attention from the first time you contact the Firm.  You will begin to get a feel of how important communication is to the lawyers and staff involved. Consider such things as whether a person answers the phone, or it goes to voicemail; does your attorney provide a cell phone number to call or text; how much time does it takes for someone to get back to you for an initial consultation; how much time does the attorney give you in the initial consultation, before you’ve even paid them. If communication seems labored or difficult, then this is a warning sign that will lead to an increase in stress as your case moves through the system.

Contact Information