Articles Posted in DUI

A drunk driving conviction has lifelong consequences. Long after your driver’s license has been restored, you’ll still have the DUI conviction on your permanent record. The good news is that the expungement laws in Michigan for DUI cases have recently been changed.

Michigan DUI expungement lawyer Patrick Barone leads the Barone Defense Firm and is partners with some of the best DUI attorneys who handle the toughest DUI cases.
This means your conviction involving an operating while intoxicated OWI offense can now be removed. And this removal or expungement comes with many benefits. Many kinds of DUI convictions are eligible, sometimes even those drunk driving convictions involving injury or death can be expunged.

What Does DUI Expungement Actually Mean?

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.

Why Does Michigan’s Law of Implied Consent Exist?

The first DUI laws went in the books all the way back in the 1950s when cars where just starting to become very common. Back then, there were no breath tests, so that law enforcement tool in a DUI investigation was not available to police officers. That only happened ten years later, in the 1960s. Technology has improved a lot since then, and the law has changed too, because the law of implied consent is younger than the first breath tests. Back in the “olden days” people could refuse a breath test in a drunk driving case without an possible sanction. That is no longer true, and today, there are serious consequences if you unreasonably refuse to to a breath test.

The Michigan Law of Implied Consent

Michigan law provides that for every person convicted of drunk driving must be subjected to substance use evaluation prior to sentencing. More specifically, Michigan Compiled Laws sec. 257.625b indicates that such individuals must undergo a screening and assessment to determine if the person would benefit from “rehabilitative services,” which may include such things as alcohol or drug education or treatment programs.

A conviction for operating under of influence of drugs has a similar requirement. This is because Michigan statutory law calls drunk driving “operating while intoxicated” (OWI). Drinking and driving is not against the law. To violate Michigan’s OWI law a person must be driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If you operate a vehicle after drinking enough alcohol to become intoxicated, or consume enough drugs to become intoxicated, then you’ve committed the offense of drunk driving. In other words, DUI and OWI are essentially the same thing.

What is a NEEDS Survey?

Michigan Drunk Driving Lawyer Explains Proximate Causation

Michigan DUI lawyer Patrick Barone knows Michigan DUI law and how to beat a DUI.What is Proximate Cause?

A drunk driving causing death case always involves allegations that (1) a person was driving a motor vehicle, (2) while intoxicated, (3) the operation of the motor vehicle caused the death of another. As previously described, proving the “vehicle caused the death of another” involves two kinds of causation. Factual causation and proximate causation.

In a criminal case, after your arrest but before your conviction or acquittal, you will be on bond. There are several discretionary terms and conditions of pretrial release, and these will be determined during your first court appearance the arraignment. A show cause is what happens when someone does something on bond contrary to what’s been ordered.

The most common allegations of a bond violation that we see at the Barone Defense Firm related to alcohol and drug testing. Often, a client will miss a drug or alcohol test, which is the most common alleged bond violation, followed by a positive drug or alcohol test.

Bond Violations are Considered Contempt of Court

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.

What’s the Difference Between DUI and OWI? In Michigan the most appropriate legal acronym is “OWI.” This stands for a drunk driving cases of operating while intoxicated when a law enforcement officer arrests a person in Michigan for being a drunk driver. Cases can be made with or without an official chemical testing result, for drugs or alcohol.

But “DUI” is still used as a more general reference to drunk driving, due to this ubiquitous abbreviation being the best-known and most widely used acronym in the United States. At Barone Defense Firm (BDF), within our law office, our Michigan criminal attorneys use either acronym interchangeably. The meaning of a DUI conviction is the same meaning as an OWI conviction.

Police officers make arrests, and our DUI attorneys defend these accused Michiganders. Intoxicated driving cases are a major legal practice area for Michigan criminal defense lawyers in our state. Even a first time DUI-OWI criminal charge threatens the driving privileges of the person charged with a crime of drunken driving or drugged driving.

Posted In: and
Published on:
Updated:

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.

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.

Contact Information