Super Lawyers
Justia Lawyer Rating
Best Lawyers
The Best Lawyers in America
Avvo Clients' Choice
Avvo Rating 10.0
National College for DUI Defense
National Collage for DUI Defense
American Council Of Second Amendment Lawyers

People vs. E.M: Implied Consent

Charge: First Offense OWI
Court: 36th District Court – Detroit Michigan

E.M. was arrested and charged with the criminal OWI as well as the civil implied consent violation. The Detroit Michigan Police report/warrant request indicated as follows:

"Crew while in full uniform and marked scout car observed above subject driving above vehicle blocking a moving lane of traffic northbound on Harper at Lakeview. Crew then observed subject slumped over the steering wheel of above listed vehicle. Crew then knocked on window of vehicle to waken subject. Writer observed open can of 12oz Bud light beer in vehicle. Once subject was awakened crew performed a field sobriety test, at which time writer could smell heavy odor of intoxicants from subject. Subject then failed sobriety test. Subject was placed into custody and vehicle towed. Subject refused breath testing". The narrative report further indicated blood shot eyes, slurred speech, and that the "subject was unaware of surroundings".

As a result of the above investigation, our client was charged with the criminal OWI as well as the civil Implied Consent violations. We demanded a hearing on the implied consent and also set the criminal matter for trial. The officer who attempted to administer the breath test as well as the assisting officer appeared for trial, but the "OIC" (officer in charge or arresting officer) was not present. We moved to dismiss on these grounds. The prosecutor argued to the Court that because the matter was a misdemeanor, he did not have to call any witnesses (technically correct), and furthermore, that he could prove his case without the arresting officer's testimony. We responded that by not calling the arresting officer we were effectively precluded our FourthResult:

Amendment right of confrontation (cross-examination), and cited to the Court the brand new case of Crawford vs. Washington, a case where the United States Supreme Court effectively expanded a criminal defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Court agreed with our arguments, and dismissed the case.

Result: Case Dismissed
Client Reviews
★★★★★
Patrick Barone is the ONLY choice for DUI defense. He was realistic from the start and made it a point to look at my case before taking my money. As a business owner, when I think of attorneys, I think of the "shark infested waters. Patrick is a shark alright, but his prey is not the client; it's justice for his client. Ten stars Patrick!! Chris F.
★★★★★
Attorney Patrick Barone was very helpful and helped me understand the charge and sentence absolutely clearly. He also guided me through step by step helping me form a statement. His instructions were clear and detailed. It was obvious he cared about me understanding every important detail within my case. I would absolutely recommend this defense firm to anyone in need. Aaron B.
★★★★★
The Barone Defense Firm is the firm I recommend. They are truly concerned about the person, not just the legal issue, but the person as well. They are the most knowledgeable defense firm that I am aware of, having actually written the book on DWI Defense. If you are faced with a DWI you will not find a more professional and skilled law firm. But, most importantly, they care about how the accused individual recovers his or her life when the case is complete. Very remarkable group of lawyers. William H.