Articles Posted in DUI Stops

As originally conceived the United States Supreme Court was intended to be a final check on the police power.   And to a lesser extent, so it is with all judges, who collectively form one of our three branches of government.

The central goal behind the idea of having three branches of government is that a separation of power would exist such that each branch would keep the other from gaining too much power.

Because of this there has always been a certain amount of tension between the branches and there has also always been a certain amount of overlap between them.

Citing the “grisly toll on the Nation’s roads,” and by opinion dated June 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not required to obtain a warrant in order to obtain a breath sample.  The same is not true of blood test where warrants are still required.  Fundamental to the Court’s analysis is their finding that breath testing is non-invasive, and can therefore be conducted as a “search incident to arrest.”  The name of the case is Birchfield v. North Dakota.

The Court’s opinion begins with a brief history of drunk driving and the evolution of breath testing to its current incarnation – infrared spectroscopy.  Included in this history is the fact that the Nation’s first “legal limit” was 0.15%.  The legal limit was later dropped to 0.10% and then dropped again to the current National standard of 0.08%.

The Birchfield opinion embraces and discussed three separate but related cases as follows:

Michigan law provides that drivers convicted of drunk driving can have their cars forfeited.  This means that upon conviction the state can take the convicted drunk driver’s car.  In those cases where the car was used without the permission or knowledge of the owner the “innocent owner” defense would apply.  If successful this defense would keep the state from grabbing the car.

The Minnesota courts have significantly lessened the applicability of this defense.

According to the Newspaper.com, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently upheld the right of police to confiscate vehicles from owners who have done nothing wrong. The decision narrowed the applicability of an “innocent owner” defense in cases where a vehicle is jointly owned. The high court considered the case of David and Jean Margaret Laase whose then-brand new 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe was confiscated in 2006.

To help make up for lost revenue, more Michigan counties are seeing forfeiture of the cars driven by people arrested for DUI.  Will yours be next?

If the Oakland County Prosecutor has her way, then the answer may well be “yes.” Jessica Cooper has instructed her prosecutors to seek forfeiture for repeat drunk driving offenses.

Here is what the Royal Oak Daily Tribune had to say about it:

With cell phones being ever present in our society, it is becoming increasingly common for people to use their cell phones to report a Michigan driver they think might be intoxicated.  If the police officer does not independently observe a traffic violation, then there may be a basis to challenge the stop. However these DUI cases are very fact-specific, and you should always have a DUI lawyer look at your case before drawing any conclusions.

A recent case will undoubtedly have an impact on how your DUI lawyer reviews your case is Navarette v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1683, 188 L.Ed.2d 680 (2014) a 911 caller claimed that they had just been run off the road by a pickup truck.  The tipster identified the truck, the license number, and where the incident had occurred. A BOL (be on the lookout) radio message went out, and police went in pursuit of the truck.  An officer pulled the truck over even though the officer failed to observe any bad driving of his own. During the traffic stop the police smelled marijuana, and upon searching the truck found four large, closed bags of marijuana in the truck bed.  Navarette and his brother who was with him were charged with illegal possession and transport of marijuana.  Before trial, their lawyer attempted to have the evidence suppressed on the basis that the officers had not corroborated the anonymous tip.

In a close decision the USSC found that the stop, based only on the 911 call, was lawful. Justice Thomas wrote in his majority opinion “under the totality of the circumstances, we find the indicia of reliability in this case sufficient to provide the officer with reasonable suspicion that the driver of the reported vehicle had run another vehicle off the road.” In a sort of ironic twist, the very fact that the call was a 911 call added to its reliably. The Court’s analysis and finding of reliability was based in part on the fact the 911 system uses several technological and regulatory features that safeguard against making false reports with immunity. These safeguards include the fact that 911 calls can be recorded and FCC regulations require the number of the 911 caller to be passed on to the dispatcher.  Thus, this technology allows police to identify 911 callers, and go after them for false reports.

On September 8, 2015, Governor Snyder signed into law House Bill 4193, making it easier for Michigan drivers to avoid a DUI arrest.

According to the new law, during a traffic stop you may now show a police officer an electronic proof of insurance on your phone.  This electronic proof of insurance would be considered prima facie evidence that you have properly insured your car.

So why does this make it easier to avoid a DUI arrest in Michigan?  Well, one of the first things a police officer will be looking for in a DUI investigation is whether or not you are able to provide a proof of insurance.  In other words, the officer will be trying to determine if you are drunk from how you respond to his/her request to provide driver license, registration and proof of insurance.

Contact Information