Patrick Barone, considered by many to be among the best DUI lawyers in Michigan, has indicated that a drunk driving causing death case is one of the most difficult kinds of criminal law cases to defend. The concept of proximate causation is one of the reasons these cases are so difficult and complicated.
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.
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.
The Michigan Eastern District Court has partially ruled in favor of a Michigan resident, finding that he does have a civil rights cause of action against the Michigan State Police (MSP) for recklessly allowing breath test evidence from faulty instruments to be used in prosecuting him. Other possible civil rights violations relating the MSP breath test program were also found. The lawsuit against Intoximeter, the corporation that services the breath test instrument used by the MSP, was however dismissed.
This case arose out of an ongoing fraud investigation in the MSP DUI breath test program the began with the discovery by a defense attorney of some questionable 120-day inspection reports relative to his client’s DataMaster DMT breath test result. The DataMaster DMT (DMT) is an infrared evidential breath alcohol test instrument used in the prosecution of drunk driving cases throughout the State. According to Michigan law and administrative rules each DMT instrument is to be inspected by a “class four” certified technician every 120 days. These 120-day inspections are intended to ensure that the instruments are correctly calibrated and are in good working order.
These 120-day inspections are in addition to weekly self-checks the device conducts automatically using a dry-gas simulator solution. Certain error codes can be generated during these tests that may cause the instrument to be taken out of service. If that happens the instruments can only be brought back into service after further inspection by a class four operator. Around the time of the discovery of the questionable records, the Michigan State Police (“MSP”) had begun to uncover their own cadre of suspect records.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog