Articles Posted in OWI

The First Amendment protects the free speech of every American in the United States. But the line between free speech and hate speech can sometimes become very blurry, leaving people to question whether an offensive or hateful remark is protected under free speech.

Back in 2010, this question was the focus for many in Michigan when assistant attorney general of Michigan, Andrew Shirvell, began a crusade against Chris Armstrong, the gay student body president of the University of Michigan.

The bottom line is really that under the First Amendment, people are free to speak their minds however they wish, even when their opinions are offensive or controversial. This is how groups like the Klu Klux Klan are still allowed to operate within America’s borders.

The BBC recently reported that judges in the United Kingdom will be receiving guides to help them deal with scientific evidence in the courtroom.  Feedback from the judges has been positive, and the first science primers will address things like DNA and fingerprint evidence, as well as computer programs that (claim to) allow the identification of suspects from the manner of their walk.  While there is no question that judges could benefit from an education in science, are these primers a good idea?

On first blush, the answer seems to be yes.  The primers are said to explain complex scientific concepts simply and without jargon so that judges can understand the legal significance of the science and apply it to the case before them.  They are written by the “foremost experts” in the topics covered, including Nobel Prize-winning scientists.  According to the BBC:

The emphasis nowadays is for courts to be more proactive to actually challenge the prosecution for example and say ‘why is this report admissible? How is it going to help you? Is it really the right report for the issues in this case?

Barone Defense Attorney Ryan Ramsayer recently handled a case in the 48^th District Court and his representation resulted in the case being dismissed.  The reason for the dismissal was an unlawful traffic stop. The facts of this case are as follows:

Client (initials HN) was an OWI 2nd and leaving the scene of an accident. She was a .20 and repeatedly admitted she was drunk on the video. The allegation was that she had rear-ended a car at Orchard Lake and Maple. According to the victim, the subject vehicle then drove west on Maple and turned north on Rose Blvd. The BOL was a “white sedan” heading north on Rose from Maple.

The responding officer arrived at an intersection just north of Maple (a few hundred feet) and encountered a white Buick Verano driven by HN who was westbound and turning North on Rose.