DUI Enforcement

Intoxilyzer 9000 – Michigan’s New Breath Test Instrument

Published on: May 8, 2023 | by Patrick Barone

Effective immediately, the Intoxilizer 9000 is replacing the DataMaster DMT as Michigan’s new breath test instrument. If you are arrested for DUI in Michigan, the chances are good your breath will be tested on a 9000. If you were over the legal limit, then keep in mind that a top DUI lawyer can beat breath test results in court.

However, for a short period of time, both breath alcohol test instruments will be used. Consequently, depending on the date and time of your evidential breath alcohol test, the police may have used the outdated DMT. If this is true in your case, then be sure to hire a top DUI defense lawyer to represent you. Breath test results rendered by the DMT are inherently untrustworthy. See this article if you are not sure how to find a top Michigan DUI lawyer.

This change to the 9000 is primarily due to the age of the DMTs currently in service. Also, the inability to obtain parts for this older equipment, and MSPs desire to employ newer technology. The Intoxilizer 9000 is widely used across the United States and is often relied upon by law enforcement agencies to determine whether an individual is legally intoxicated.

Can You Get a DUI for Being High?

Published on: October 10, 2022 | by Patrick Barone

Many people ask us if you can get a DUI for being high. The answer is yes, you can get a DUI in Michigan for being high on Marijuana. If you use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes, you might wonder, “How do cops test for a weed DUI? Police officers will use the same kind of roadside tests used for one involving alcohol. So, from this perspective, there is little difference in a DUI with weed vs. alcohol.

What many drivers don’t realize is that you can be arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana even if you used it legally and hours earlier. Michigan law doesn’t set a legal limit for THC like it does for alcohol, so the decision to arrest often depends on the officer’s observations—things like your driving behavior, field sobriety test performance, and physical appearance. This creates a lot of legal gray areas, especially for people who use medical marijuana and may have residual THC in their system without being impaired.

Without getting to technical, one difference is that a DRE officer might be involved if the cops suspect marijuana impairment. Another difference is that there is currently no DUI breath test for weed.

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.

Drivers with Marijuana in their System are Less Likely to Cause Accidents than Drivers with a .05 BAC

Published on: January 1, 2022 | by Ryan Ramsayer

A new comprehensive study on the effects of marijuana use and driving has demonstrated that the use of marijuana has far less impact on driving than does the use of alcohol. Despite the fact that the emerging science suggests that drivers can use marijuana and operate their vehicles safely, the DUI laws in Michigan treat marijuana as being equal to or even more dangerous than alcohol.

Part of the reason for this disparity is that the public policy behind Michigan’s DUI laws are mired in many of the archaic misapprehensions that historically existed about marijuana and its impact on driving. Now that recreational marijuana is legal in Michigan for those above 21 years of age, a rational discussion of what, if any, effect marijuana has on driving is long overdue. To address this issue, Michael A. White and Nicholas R. Burns, preformed a meta-analysis on over 17 available marijuana studies to clarify the actual relationship between marijuana, specifically active THC, and driving.

Their study: The risk of being culpable for or involved in a road crash after using cannabis: A systematic review and meta-analyses, published in Drug Science, Policy and Law, concluded that it is likely that marijuana does not actually cause more accidents than the normal rate of accidents occurring by all drivers. To get to this determination, they used a process called meta-analysis, which is the review of previously published studies to obtain a more comprehensive result than any single study is capable of. For this analysis, they used 17 studies conducted between 1982 and 2020. These studies were conducted in several countries by different researchers with differing results. White and Burns then their own testing methodology in an effort to control for inherent biases in the prior studies.

Infrastructure Bill Breathalyzer Won’t Be What You Think

Published on: January 1, 2022 | by Patrick Barone

President Joe Biden’s Investment and Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA) does require automakers to install advanced impairment detection technology, and sets a timeline for doing so. It is up to the transportation department to decide what technology to use.

As part of vehicle safety measures designed to determine if the driver may be impaired, breathalyzers are one option. But what the government really wants is something that will passively monitor the performance of the driver to identify whether that driver my be intoxicated. The highway traffic safety administration is also in favor of such technology.

In order for the technology to do it’s job it must be “advanced” and “passive.” It will be seamlessly placed into cars allowing the vehicle to accurately identify and measure driver impairment through driver performance. This anti drunk driving technology will also measure driver intoxication by analyzing the driver’s blood alcohol level. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Organization, the monitoring systems being considered do not include ignition interlock devices.

Advanced Impaired Driving Technology Could Begin Stopping Drunk Drivers in Two Years

Published on: January 1, 2022 | by Barone Defense Firm

On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the bipartisan Investment Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA). This new law contains a provision requiring that all passenger vehicles eventually be equipped with technology that will stop drunk drivers. New cars may start utilizing such technology immediately, but the law won’t require this advanced impaired driving technology any sooner than 2 years from now, though it’s likely to take far longer.

What is the Timeline for Requiring Advanced Impairment Detection Technology?

As previously indicated in our previous article entitled Infrastructure Bill to Combat Drunk Driving by Requiring Alcohol Monitoring Technology the new law does not, with any degree of specificity, indicate what technologies are to be utilized for this purpose. Instead, the law sets forth a timeline for the Secretary of Transportation to write the specific motor vehicle safety standard. Section 24220(c) indicates that not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the IIJA, the Secretary of Transportation (SOT) shall issue a “final rule” requiring that a motor vehicle safety standard be added to the relevant section of the federal code.

What Happens to Drivers License After MI DUI Arrest?

Published on: January 1, 2022 | by Patrick Barone

Immediately upon your arrest for DUI in Michigan the arresting officer notifies the Secretary of State. This happens when the arresting officer destroys your plastic driver’s license and prepares a DI-177, which is entitled “Breath Blood or Urine Report Michigan Temporary Driving Permit.” This document becomes your paper license and you will use it to drive until you are convicted or until your case is dismissed. A DI-177 is only prepared if you agree to take a breath or blood test when asked by the arresting officer.

If you refused to submit to a breath or blood test then the officer will prepare a DI-93, which is entitled “Report of Refusal.” This too becomes your paper license but is only good for 14 days or until after you win your appeal hearing. Because you are not allowed to refuse a breath or blood test your license will be suspended for a year unless your Michigan DUI lawyer demands a hearing within this 14-day period.

Your Driving Record Shows Your DUI Arrest Even Before Conviction

Infrastructure Bill to Combat Drunk Driving by Requiring Alcohol Monitoring Technology

Published on: December 29, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

The bipartisan Investment Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA) seeks to combat drunk driving by requiring all new passenger vehicles be equipped with Advanced Alcohol Monitoring Technology. The drive behind this section of the 2702-page IIJA was led by Michigan Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. MADD also played a significant role in the development of this law.

However, until now, their efforts have focused on requiring all first-time drunk driving offenders to use Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIID). The IIJA instead focuses on different type of technology and this technology will be required in all passenger vehicles, regardless of whether the driver has ever been charged with drunk driving.

Congresswoman Dingell and MADD’s combined efforts bore fruit on November 15, 2021, when President Joe Biden signed into IIJA into law. Section 24220 of the Act is entitled “Advanced Impaired Driving Technology” (AIDP) and requires that “drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” become standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.

High BAC Superdrunk OWI and Child Endangerment on the Rise in Michigan

Published on: December 22, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

The number of High BAC Superdrunk OWI and Child Endangerment Cases are on the rise in Michigan. This is due to a variety of factors, including an increase in binge drinking among college educated, divorced or separated males, pandemic isolation and school closures.

One recent study published in Science News [i] suggests that between 2015 and 2019 binge drinking among men 65 and older increased by about 20% from 12.8 percent to 15.7 percent. The study suggests that binge drinking did not increase for older women during the same period. College educated women and separated or divorced men were both also at higher risk of binge drinking. The use of marijuana or tobacco increased risk of binge drinking for both men and woman alike. The study had a sample size of 18.794.

Another study, this one published by Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, supports the proposition that the pandemic has had a great influence on the recently higher prevalence of both Super Drunk Driving and Child Endangerment OWI.

Why Aren’t Juries Informed of Their Right to Nullification?

Published on: December 15, 2021 | by Patrick Barone

In the United States juries are not informed by the judge of their right to nullification because the case law addressing jury nullification remains oblique. It is therefore commonly said that in the United States juries are empaneled to resolve issues of fact, but when it comes to nullification, juries have the right but not the power to judge the law. Consequently, a judge will never directly instruct a jury than they judge the law. The reverse is also true; a judge will not instruct a jury that they may not judge the law. In a criminal case, the litigants are also precluded from advising the jury of their right to nullification.

When looking at the history of nullification in the Untied States, it is clear that while the breadth of jury nullification in our criminal justice system has ebbed and flowed it has never entirely gone away. Today a jury sitting on a criminal case may engage in nullification. Since nullification remains a part of our criminal justice system, the question that obtains is this; how much influence can, or should, the judiciary have in limiting or otherwise influencing the jury’s right to nullify? Said differently, as “keepers of the law,” what role do judges have in explaining or refuting nullification?

In looking at the question of whether or not jurors should be informed of their right to nullify, Irwin A. Horowitz has this to say: