For most drivers the legal limit to drive in Michigan is .08. For people under the age of 21, Michigan has zero tolerance, which is legally defined as .02 or above. Commercial drivers, such as truckers and limousine drivers, can’t have a BAC of more than .04 to drive legally.
Provided you did not drink enough of the wine to become impaired or intoxicated, the only potential ramifications of driving home with your unfinished open bottle is that you could be charged with possessing or transporting open intoxicants in a motor vehicle. This crime is often simply called “open intox” or “open alcohol in a car.” Avoiding this charge is easy if you know the law. So, before we discuss how to avoid picking up a charge for open intoxicants in a motor vehicle, let’s first make sure you understand the law.
In Michigan it is illegal to possess or transport alcohol that is open, or uncapped, or where the seal has been broken within the passenger area of the car. ‘Open’ most often refers to a can where the tab has been popped, or a cup that contains alcohol. ‘Uncapped’ refers to a bottle top that has been removed. ‘Broken seal’ refers to a twist of cap, or similar top, or cork that has been opened previously and replaced. The ‘passenger area’ means any area that is readily accessible to the driver or a passenger(s) from their seats, including the glove compartment and center console.
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.
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.
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.
Victoria Police was caught falsifying more than a quarter million roadside breath tests over a five-year period. The claim is that the officers did this to meet quotas or to highlight their productivity. At the end of the month, when quotas had not been met, officers would set up ad-hoc roadblocks to test motorist’s breath or make as many traffic stops as possible. Another option for police officers was to fake a series of tests. They would do this one of three ways, either by blowing into the handheld roadside breath testing unit (PBT) themselves, holding the unit outside a window of a moving car, or even simply placing a finger or thumb over the inlet to “trick” the PBT into believing a breath sample was being received. The claim is that none of the fake tests were involved in any drunk driving arrests and that the results of such fake tests were not used in court.
A spokesperson for the Victoria Police claimed that they do not set quotas for officers. They acknowledged however that local managers may set their own targets. The police union claims all this faking occurred due to overly demanding workloads and expectations. In some instances, police were expected to collect as many as 50 breath samples in a single shift.
The Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) had a part in uncovering this and other abuses with Victoria Police and expressed deep concern that Victoria Police had developed a culture where such abuses were not only commonplace but unofficially sanctioned.
Michigan is likely to have a .05 legal limit for drunk driving within the next five years. This is because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has begun pushing a .05 legal limit at the national level. Once a .05 legal limit is adopted as national policy, the federal government will use highway funds to force all states to lower their legal limits to .05. Michigan will capitulate to this new lower legal limit, just as they did in 2003 when the legal limit was lowered from .10 to .08.
The latest round of NHTSA’s efforts toward a national .05 legal limit is contained in its publication entitled: Getting to Zero Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities: A Comprehensive Approach to a Persistent Problem. This publication first sets forth their definition of the problem, which is alcohol-related traffic offenses, and then details their proposed solution, which includes a lower legal limit of .05 combined with increasingly aggressive law enforcement practices, including roadblocks.
NHTSA’s initial statement or premise is that:
If you are interested in obtaining one of Michigan’s five commercial Medical Marijuana licenses, then as part of the application process you will need to demonstrate that you have the financial ability to obtain and maintain adequate premises liability and casualty insurance for its proposed marihuana facility. See MCL § 333.27402(2)(e). What is “adequate” is not otherwise defined by statute, though it may be set for the administrative rules when they are promulgated later this year.
LARA and the Michigan Medical Marijuana Board have the right to set rules when necessary that are related to the administration, implementation, and enforcement of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Some examples of appropriate rules include setting appropriate standards for marijuana facilities and their equipment. In addition, they can establish minimum insurance levels that licensees must meet.
Also, the Medical Marijuana Act specifically requires that you obtain insurance to reimburse someone for bodily injury suffered because of the manufacture, distribution, transportation, or sale of adulterated marijuana or adulterated marijuana-infused product. The insurance must be for at least one hundred thousand ($100,000.00) dollars. However, since obtaining insurance can be difficult considering marijuana remains a “schedule 1” drug, the proof of financial responsibility may be in the form of cash or unencumbered securities or a constant value bond. You are not allowed to cancel your insurance as required unless you give 30 days’ notice to the department, and provide a reasonable and acceptable substitute. See MCL § 333.27408 Proof of financial responsibility.
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.
Disclaimer: This case was overruled by the more recent Michigan Supreme Court case of People v. Rea.
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that a person may drive drunk in their own driveway. The name of the case is People v. Rea, 315 Mich. App. 151 (2016), and in this case, after having “a lot” to drink the defendant decided he wanted to listen to some music. So, he drove his car from his garage to a point in his private driveway in line with his house. A neighbor didn’t like the defendant’s taste in music and called in the loud music. Thereafter, two police officers responded to the 911 call.
When they arrived, the defendant was seated in the driver’s seat, with the driver’s side door open. According to the court’s opinion, the “vehicle was parked deep in defendant’s driveway, next to his house.” One of the officers told him to turn down the music, and then left. At some point the neighbor called again, and when one of the officers returned, he could not see the defendant’s car. The neighbor called a third time and this time when the police arrived the officer observed that the garage door was opened, “and defendant’s vehicle backed out for “about 25 feet” before stopping still within the defendant’s yard and property. He then pulled the car back into the garage. He was arrested as he walked toward his house.”
What Follows is a draft excerpt from The Legality of Search and Seizure in DUI Cases, 2016-2017 ed.: Leading Lawyers on Leveraging Science and Process to Develop Winning Defense Strategies (Inside the Minds):
Evidence collected from search and seizure plays the starring role in the prosecution of DUI cases, and in fact, were it not for search and seizure there would be no DUI case. When we talk about search and seizure, we are squarely within all of the law that has arisen out of the 4th amendment to the Constitution which provides as follows:
“[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog