Michigan DUI Attorney
Lansing Drunk Driving Attorney
In our American system of criminal justice, you are presumed innocent of all crimes until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a prosecuting official. If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a criminal offense, do NOT, under any circumstances, talk to the police. Reveal only your name, date of birth, address, and telephone number to the police, and do NOT consent to a police search or government official search of your body, home, telephone, computer, or vehicle without a search warrant. If you are facing questioning from a police officer or prosecuting official, contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580, and let Eric J. Sheppard fight for your rights.
If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a drunk driving offense, then you need to contact Lansing drunk driving attorney Eric J. Sheppard. Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard is aggressive and experienced in fighting all felony and misdemeanor drunk driving cases.
Every year, thousands of motorists are pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Drunk driving charges are one of the most common form of criminal charges throughout the State of Michigan and across the country. If you are pulled over and arrested for drunk driving, it is vitally important to retain an attorney that understands the complex nature of the law regarding the stopping and detaining of motor vehicles, roadside questioning and detection of alcohol, arrest and detention of a motorist, chemical testing, and evidentiary and scientific principles associated with drunk driving cases. You need an attorney that will properly evaluate your case and properly advise you on the potential strengths and weaknesses of your case, the potential consequences that you are facing, and the potential outcomes of your case.
STOPPING AND DETAINING OF MOTOR VEHICLES
The United States Constitution and Michigan Constitution both guarantee the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11; People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 417; 605 NW2d 667 (2000).
Generally, a search or seizure conducted without probable cause is unreasonable. People v Lewis, 251 Mich App 58, 69; 649 NW2d 792 (2002). But the United States Supreme Court has determined that the Fourth Amendment permits police to stop and briefly detain a person based on “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.” Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 30-31; 88 SCt 1868; 20 LEd 2d 889 (1968). The Terry exception has been extended to incorporate “investigative stops” under a variety of circumstances for “specific law enforcement needs.” People v Nelson, 443 Mich 626, 631; 505 NW2d 266 (1993).
In order for law enforcement officers to make constitutionally proper investigative stops, they must satisfy the two-part test set forth in United States v Cortez, 449 US 411; 101 SCt 690; 66 LEd 2d 621 (1981). Id. The totality of the circumstances, as understood and interpreted by law enforcement officers, not legal scholars, must yield a particular suspicion that the individual being investigated has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.
The suspicion must be reasonable and articulable, and the authority and limitations associated with investigative stops apply to vehicles as well as people. Id. Reasonable suspicion is something more than an inchoate or unparticularized suspicion or “hunch,” but it is less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause. People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 98; 549 NW2d 849 (1996); United States v Sokolow, 490 US 1; 109 SCt 1581; 104 LEd 2d 1 (1989). The reasonableness of a police officer’s suspicion must be determined “case by case on the basis of the totality of all the facts and circumstances.” People v LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich 496, 501-502; 556 NW2d 498 (1996).
TRAFFIC STOP:
“In order to effectuate a valid traffic stop, a police officer must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a vehicle or one of its occupants is subject to seizure for a violation of law.” People v Matthew Jevon Williams, 236 Mich App 610, 612; 601 NW2d 138 (1999). A traffic stop is permissible when an officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred or was occurring. People v Marcus Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 362; 649 NW2d 94 (2002). Probable cause exists if there is a substantial basis for inferring a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime exists in the location to be searched.” People v Malone, 287 Mich App 648, 663; 792 NW2d 7 (2010).
Therefore, upon “reasonable grounds shown, a police officer may stop and inspect a motor vehicle for an equipment violation.” Matthew Jevon Williams, supra. Although a minimum threshold of reasonable suspicion must be present to justify an investigatory stop, fewer facts are needed to establish the reasonableness of a stop of a motor vehicle. LoCicero, supra at 502; People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 682; 213 NW2d 116 (1973).
Additionally, “[a] police officer who witnesses a civil infraction may stop and temporarily detain the person, for the purpose of issuing a written citation.” People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 366; 770 NW2d 68 (2009). An actual violation of the vehicle code need not be proven. Rather, the officer’s reasonable impression that a violation may have occurred is the dispositive question. People v Fisher, 463 Mich 881, 882; 617 NW2d 37 (2000).
A traffic violation or civil infraction provides sufficient cause to justify the stop of a vehicle. People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 420 n 8; 605 NW2d 667 (2000). However, the constitution requires an individualized, articulable suspicion to conduct a stop in the absence of a traffic or equipment violation. People v Burrell, 417 Mich 439, 450; 339 NW2d 403 (1983).
A stop may not be utilized as a pretext to search for evidence of another offense. People v Haney, 192 Mich App 207, 209; 480 NW2d 322 (1991). When police lack reasonable suspicion to support a stop, the stop is a mere pretext, and evidence derived from the search made incident to the stop or arrest is suppressed. Id. at 209-210. The constitutional reasonableness of a stop does not depend upon the actual motivations of the police officer involved. Whren v United States, 517 US 806, 813; 116 S Ct 1769; 135 L Ed 2d 89 (1996); People v Oliver, 464 Mich 184, 200; 627 NW2d 297 (2001).
However, a police officer’s “incorrect belief that a motorist is in violation of state traffic laws is insufficient to justify a traffic stop.” United States v Granado, 302 F3d 421, 423 (5th Cir 2002), superseded by statute as noted in United States v Contreras-Trevino, 448 F3d 821, 824 (5th Cir 2006).
Reasonable suspicion exists when there are specific and articulable facts that, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonable warrant the intrusion. Wren v United States, 517 US 806; 116 S Ct 1796 (1996). A police officer's "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch" is not sufficient reasonable suspicion.
ROADSIDE QUESTIONING AND THE DETECTION OF ALCOHOL
If your motor vehicle has been pulled over and detained by a government official, then you will be asked to provide identification, registration information, and proof of insurance to the government official. At this point in time, the government official may believe that he or she detects the presence of alcohol based on observation of the motorists actions, speech, and additional sensory observations such as sight and smell of the motorist or the vehicle. The government official will look for bloodshot eyes, slow movements, slurred speech, shaking hands, eye fixation, gripping the wheel too tightly, slouching in the seat, erratically gesturing, and/or the strong "smell" of alcoholic beverages on the breath of the motorist or coming from inside the motor vehicle. The government official will also look to whether or not the motorist is responsive to the stopping of the vehicle and the initial questions to the motorist or whether the motorist is slow to respond, evades the government official, or otherwise impedes the investigation into the motorist and the potential for illegal activity. When the vehicle is pulled over, the government official will look for whether there was a slow response in pulling over, whether the vehicle strikes another vehicle, whether the vehicle strikes a curb, and whether the vehicle gives no response to the government official's order to pull over.
Typically, if a government official has stopped and detained your freedom of movement, and the government official is asking you questions, you must be advised of your constitutional rights. However, Michigan courts have held that certain basic roadside questioning of a motorist is acceptable without any advising of constitutional rights.
If the government official believes that he or she detects the presence of alcohol, then the officer will typically ask the motorist to step outside of the vehicle. The officer will be making additional observations of the motorist, including, but not limited to, whether the motorist exhibits: bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, loud or abusive language, inconsistent or unusual responses, or unusual actions and erratic behavior. The government official will also be looking for obvious signs of an intoxicated motorist by looking for open alcohol containers, alcoholic beverages, drugs, or paraphernalia.
The government official will ask questions of the motorist and will be observing the motorists' answers to those questions. If the government official detects alcohol in any manner, then the government official will typically have the motorist perform field sobriety tests.
Field Sobriety Tests:
The government official will look to whether or not the motorist exhibited signs of intoxication or impairment during these tests. If the officer then believes that the motorist is intoxicated, the officer may have the motorist perform a preliminary breath test (PBT). The government official will utilize the result of the PBT and the government official's previous observations in deciding whether there is probable cause to arrest the motorist for driving while intoxicated or impaired.
ADMISSIBILITY OF PBT TEST - ADMINISTRATIVE RULES - LAW ON PBT:
Generally, a PBT is not admissible in evidence. MCL 257.625a(2)(b) states the exceptions:
(b) The results of a preliminary chemical breath analysis are admissible in a criminal prosecution for a crime enumerated in section 625c(1) or in an administrative hearing for 1 or more of the following purposes:
(i) To assist the court or hearing officer in determining a challenge to the validity of an arrest. This subparagraph does not limit the introduction of other competent evidence offered to establish the validity of an arrest.
Michigan State Police Administrative Regulation, R 325.2655(2)(b), states:
(b) A person may be administered a breath test on a preliminary
breath alcohol test instrument only after it has been determined that the
person has not smoked, regurgitated, or placed anything in his or her mouth
for at least 15 minutes.
The purpose of the Michigan State Police Administrative Rules with respect to the administration of breath tests is to ensure the accuracy of those tests. People v Rexford, 228 Mich App 371, 377-378; 579 NW2d 111 (1998); People v Boughner, 209 Mich App 397, 398; 531 NW2d 746 (1995); People v Tipolt, 198 Mich App 44, 46; 497 NW2d 198 (1993). Failure to meet the foundational requirements will preclude the use of the test results. Id. Suppression of test results is required when the deviation from the administrative rule calls the accuracy of the test into question. People v Wujkowski, 230 Mich App 181, 186-187; 583 NW2d 257 (1998).
The purpose of requiring the 15 minute observation period is to ensure the accuracy of the tests by mandating that a PBT only be administered after a test subject’s mouth has been clear of foreign substances for at least 15 minutes. People v Mullen, 282 Mich App 14, 23; 762 NW2d 170 (2008).
ARREST
If the government official determines that the motorist is operating while intoxicated or impaired, the government official will handcuff and arrest the motorist. The motorist will then be transported to a police station, where the government official will administer a chemical test on the motorist.
ELEMENTS OF COMMON DRUNK DRIVING OFFENSES:
M Crim JI 15.1 Operating While Intoxicated—OWI
The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle
(1) with an unlawful bodily alcohol level; [and/or]
(2) while under the influence of alcohol; [or]
(3) while under the influence of a controlled substance; [or]
(4) while under the influence of an intoxicating substance; [or]
(5) while under the influence of a combination of [alcohol / a controlled substance / an intoxicating substance]
M Crim JI 15.2 Elements Common to Operating While Intoxicated [OWI] and Operating While Visibly Impaired [OWVI]
To prove that the defendant operated while intoxicated [or while visibly impaired], the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle [on or about (state date)]. Operating means driving or having actual physical control of the vehicle.
(2) Second, that the defendant was operating a vehicle on a highway or other place open to the public or generally accessible to motor vehicles.
(3) Third, that the defendant was operating the vehicle in the [county / city] of ____________________________________.
M Crim JI 15.3 Specific Elements of Operating While Intoxicated [OWI]
(1) To prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [choose from the following]:
(a) operated the vehicle with a bodily alcohol level of 0.08 grams or more [per 100 milliliters of blood / 210 liters of breath / 67 milliliters of urine];1
(b) was under the influence of alcohol while operating the vehicle;
(c) was under the influence of a controlled substance while operating the vehicle;
(d) was under the influence of an intoxicating substance while operating the vehicle;
(e) was under the influence of a combination of [alcohol / a controlled substance / an intoxicating substance]2 while operating the vehicle.
[Choose from the following alternatives:]
(2) “Under the influence of alcohol” means that because of drinking alcohol, the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle in a normal manner was substantially lessened. To be under the influence, a person does not have to be what is called “dead drunk,” that is, falling down or hardly able to stand up. On the other hand, just because a person has drunk alcohol or smells of alcohol does not prove, by itself, that the person is under the influence of alcohol. The test is whether, because of drinking alcohol, the defendant’s mental or physical condition was significantly affected and the defendant was no longer able to operate a vehicle in a normal manner.
(3) “Under the influence of a controlled substance” means that because of using or consuming a controlled substance, the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle in a normal manner was substantially lessened. To be under the influence, a person does not have to be falling down or hardly able to stand up. On the other hand, just because a person has consumed or used a controlled substance does not prove, by itself, that the person is under the influence of a controlled substance. The test is whether, because of the use or consumption of a controlled substance, the defendant’s mental or physical condition was significantly affected and the defendant was no longer able to operate a vehicle in a normal manner. [Name substance] is a controlled substance.
(4) “Under the influence of an intoxicating substance” means that because of consuming or taking into [his / her] body an intoxicating substance, the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle in a normal manner was substantially lessened. To be under the influence, a person does not have to be falling down or hardly able to stand up. On the other hand, just because a person has consumed or used an intoxicating substance does not prove, by itself, that the person is under the influence of an intoxicating substance. The test is whether, because of consuming or taking into [his / her] body an intoxicating substance, the defendant’s mental or physical condition was significantly affected and the defendant was no longer able to operate a vehicle in a normal manner.
[Choose (a) or (b) as appropriate:]
(a) [Name substance] is an intoxicating substance.
(b) An intoxicating substance is a substance in any form, including but not limited to vapors and fumes, other than food, that was taken into the defendant’s body in any manner, that is used in a manner or for a purpose for which it was not intended, and that may result in a condition of intoxication.
M Crim JI 15.4 Specific Elements of Operating While Visibly Impaired [OWVI]
[The defendant is charged with / You may also consider the less serious charge of] operating a motor vehicle while visibly impaired. To prove that the defendant operated while visibly impaired, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, due to the [drinking of alcohol / use or consumption of a controlled substance / use or consumption of an intoxicating substance / use or consumption of a combination of (alcohol / a controlled substance / an intoxicating substance)1], the defendant drove with less ability than would an ordinary careful driver. The defendant’s driving ability must have been lessened to the point that it would have been noticed by another person.
M Crim JI 15.5 Factors in Considering Operating While Intoxicated [OWI] and Operating While Visibly Impaired [OWVI]
As you consider the possible verdicts, you should think about the following:
[Choose appropriate paragraphs:]
(1) What was the mental and physical condition of the defendant at the time that [he / she] was operating the motor vehicle? Were the defendant’s reflexes, ability to see, way of walking and talking, manner of driving, and judgment normal? If there was evidence that any of these things seemed abnormal, was this caused by [drinking alcohol / using or consuming a controlled substance / using or consuming an intoxicating substance / using or consuming a combination of (alcohol / a controlled substance / an intoxicating substance)1]?
(2) You may also consider bodily alcohol content in reaching your verdict. In that regard, [was / were] the test(s) technically accurate? Was the equipment properly assembled and maintained and in good working order when the test(s) [was / were] given?
(3) Were the test results reliable? Was the test given correctly? Was the person who gave it properly trained? Did the circumstances under which the test was given affect the accuracy of the results?
(4) One way to determine whether a person is intoxicated is to measure how much alcohol is in [his / her] [blood / breath / urine]. There was evidence in this trial that a test was given to the defendant. The purpose of this test is to measure the amount of alcohol in a person’s [blood / breath / urine].
[Choose (5)(a) or (5)(b):]
(5) If you find
(a) that there were 0.08 grams or more of alcohol [per 100 milliliters of the defendant’s blood / per 210 liters of the defendant’s breath / per 67 milliliters of the defendant’s urine] when [he / she] operated the vehicle, you may find the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with an unlawful bodily alcohol content, whether or not this alcohol content affected the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.
(b) [use for acts occurring on or after October 31, 2010:] that there were 0.17 grams or more of alcohol [per 100 milliliters of blood / per 210 liters of breath / per 67 milliliters of urine] when [he / she] operated the vehicle, whether or not this alcohol content affected the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle, you may also find that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle with a bodily alcohol content of 0.17 grams or more, whether or not it affected the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.
(6) You may infer that the defendant’s bodily alcohol content at the time of the test was the same as [his / her] bodily alcohol content at the time [he / she] operated the motor vehicle.2
(7) In considering the evidence and arriving at your verdict, you may give the test whatever weight you believe that it deserves. The results of a test are just one factor you may consider, along with all other evidence about the condition of the defendant at the time [he / she] was operating the motor vehicle.
PENALTIES FOR DRUNK DRIVING AND OTHER RELATED OFFENSES
First Offense:
Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) or Operating With Any Presence of a Schedule 1 Drug or Cocaine (OWPD)
• $100 to $500 fine and one or more of the following:
◦ Up to 93 days in jail.
◦ Up to 360 hours of community service.
• Driver's license suspension for 30 days, followed by license restrictions for 150 days.
• Possible vehicle immobilization.
• Possible ignition interlock.
• Six points added to driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee:
◦ $1,000 for 2 consecutive years for OWI.
◦ $500 for 2 consecutive years for OWPD.
High Blood Alcohol Content (BAC of .17 or higher). This is one of the operating while intoxicated crimes, but it has harsher consequences.
• One or more of the following:
◦ Up to 180 days in jail.
◦ $200 to $700 fine.
◦ Up to 360 hours of community service.
• Driver's license suspension for 1 year. Eligible for restrictions after 45 days of suspension if an ignition interlock device is installed on all vehicles the offender owns or intends to operate.
• Possible metal license plate confiscation if the offender operates a vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device.
• Mandatory vehicle immobilization if the offense is subsequently convicted for operating a vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1000 for 2 consecutive years.
Operating While Visibly Impaired
• Up to a $300 fine, and one or more of the following:
◦ Up to 93 days in jail.
◦ Up to 360 hours of community service.
• Driver's license restrictions for 90 days (180 days if impaired by a controlled substance).
• Possible vehicle immobilization.
• 4 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Second Offense within 7 Years (any combination):
Operating While Intoxicated
• $200 to $1000 fine, and one or more of the following:
◦ 5 days to 1 year in jail.
◦ 30 to 90 days of community service
• Driver's license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for 90 to 180 days, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1,000 for 2 consecutive years.
Operating While Visibly Impaired
• $200 to $1,000 fine, and one or more of the following:
◦ 5 days to 1 year in jail.
◦ 30 to 90 days of community service.
• Driver's license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for 90 to 180 days unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• 4 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Third Offense Within Lifetime (any combination) is a Felony
Operating While Intoxicated
• $500 to $5,000 fine, and either of the following:
◦ 1 to 5 years imprisonment
◦ Probation, with 30 days to 1 year in jail.
• 60 to 180 days community service.
• Driver's license revocation and denial if there are 2 convictions within 7 years or 3 convictions within 10 years. The minimum period of revocation and denial is 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for 1 to 3 years, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• Vehicle registration denial.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1,000 for 2 consecutive years.
Operating While Visibly Impaired
• $500 to $5,000 fine, and either of the following:
◦ 1 to 5 years imprisonment
◦ Probation, with 30 days to 1 year in jail.
• 60 to 180 days community service.
• Driver's license revocation and denial if there are 2 convictions within 7 years or 3 convictions within 10 years. The minimum period of revocation and denial is 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for 1 to 3 years, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• Vehicle registration denial.
• 4 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Causing Death or Serious Injury if Operating While Intoxicated, Operating While Visibly Impaired, Operating with Any Presence of Drugs, or Operating While License Suspended, Revoked or Denied (First Offense) These crimes are felonies.
• Death -- Up to 15 years imprisonment, or a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both.
• Injury -- Up to 5 years imprisonment, or a fine of $1,000 to $5,000, or both.
• Emergency Responder Death -- Up to 20 years imprisonment, or a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both.
• Driver's license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1,000 for 2 consecutive years.
Causing Death or Serious Injury if Operating While Intoxicated, Operating While Visibly Impaired, Operating with Any Presence of Drugs, or Operating While License Suspended, Revoked or Denied (Second Offense within 7 years) These crimes are felonies.
• Death -- Up to 15 years imprisonment, or a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both.
• Injury -- Up to 5 years imprisonment, or a fine of $1,000 to $5,000, or both.
• Emergency Responder Death -- Up to 20 years imprisonment, or a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both.
• Driver's license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1,000 for 2 consecutive years.
Open Intoxicants in a Motor Vehicle
• Up to a $100 fine.
• First offense -- No action taken against driver's license.
• Second offense -- Driver's license is suspended for 30 days, followed by restrictions for 60 days.
• Third offense -- Driver's license is suspended for 60 days, followed by restrictions for 305 days.
• Alcohol screening may be required.
• points added to the offender's driving record.
Driver's License Sanctions for Drivers Under Age 21
Zero Tolerance (under age 21)
First Offense
• Up to a $250 fine, or up to 360 hours of community service, or both.
• Driver's license is restricted for 30 days.
• 4 points are added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Second Offense with 7 years
• One or more of the following:
◦ Up to a $500 fine.
◦ Up to 60 days of community service.
◦ Up to 93 days in jail.
• Driver's license suspension for 90 days. If there is a prior drunk or drugged driving conviction, there is a driver license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• 4 points are added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Person Under 21 Purchase/Consume/Possess Alcohol
• First offense -- $100 fine. No driver's license sanction.
• Second offense -- $200 fine. Driver's license is suspended for 30 days and restricted for 60 days.
• Third offense -- $500 fine. Driver's license is suspended for 60 days and restricted for 305 days.
• Alcohol screening may be required.
• Community service may be required.
Person Under 21 Transporting or Possessing Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle
• Up to a $100 fine.
• Driver's license sanctions:
◦ First offense -- No driver's license sanction.
◦ Second offense -- Driver's license suspension for 30 days, and restriction for 60 days.
◦ Third offense -- Driver's license suspension for 60 days, and restriction for 305 days.
• Alcohol screening may be required.
• Community service may be required.
• Vehicle may be impounded for up to 30 days.
• 2 points are added to the offender's driving record.
Using Fraudulent ID to Purchase Alcohol
• Up to a $100 fine, or up to 93 days in jail, or both.
• Driver's license is suspended for 90 days.
• Alcohol screening may be required.
Driving While License Suspended, Revoked, or Denied
First Offense
• Up to a $500 fine, or up to 93 days in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Second Offense
• Up to a $1,000 fine, or up to 1 year in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• Vehicle may be immobilized for up to 180 days.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Third Offense
• Up to a $1,000 fine, or up to 1 year in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
• If there are 2 prior convictions within 7 years, there are additional consequences:
◦ License plate confiscation.
◦ Vehicle immobilization for 90 to 180 days.
Fourth Offense
• Up to a $1,000 fine, or up to 1 year in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
• If there are 3 prior convictions within 7 years, there are additional consequences:
◦ License plate confiscation.
◦ Vehicle immobilization for 90 to 180 days.
Fifth Offense
• Up to a $1,000 fine, or up to 1 year in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
• If there are 4 prior convictions within 7 years, there are additional consequences:
◦ License plate confiscation.
Vehicle immobilization for 1 to 3 years.
SOURCE: Michigan Secretary of State
The Law Office of Eric J. Sheppard
2109 Hamilton Road, Suite 206
Okemos MI 48864
[email protected]
PH: 517-618-1580 (office)
PH: 216-973-9996 (cell)
Fax: 517-913-6321
Lansing Drunk Driving Attorney
In our American system of criminal justice, you are presumed innocent of all crimes until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a prosecuting official. If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a criminal offense, do NOT, under any circumstances, talk to the police. Reveal only your name, date of birth, address, and telephone number to the police, and do NOT consent to a police search or government official search of your body, home, telephone, computer, or vehicle without a search warrant. If you are facing questioning from a police officer or prosecuting official, contact Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard immediately at 517-618-1580, and let Eric J. Sheppard fight for your rights.
If you or your loved one is accused or charged with a drunk driving offense, then you need to contact Lansing drunk driving attorney Eric J. Sheppard. Lansing criminal defense attorney Eric J. Sheppard is aggressive and experienced in fighting all felony and misdemeanor drunk driving cases.
Every year, thousands of motorists are pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Drunk driving charges are one of the most common form of criminal charges throughout the State of Michigan and across the country. If you are pulled over and arrested for drunk driving, it is vitally important to retain an attorney that understands the complex nature of the law regarding the stopping and detaining of motor vehicles, roadside questioning and detection of alcohol, arrest and detention of a motorist, chemical testing, and evidentiary and scientific principles associated with drunk driving cases. You need an attorney that will properly evaluate your case and properly advise you on the potential strengths and weaknesses of your case, the potential consequences that you are facing, and the potential outcomes of your case.
STOPPING AND DETAINING OF MOTOR VEHICLES
The United States Constitution and Michigan Constitution both guarantee the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11; People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 417; 605 NW2d 667 (2000).
- This means that you have a right to be free from government interference and the government illegally stopping you and detaining you, which is a violation of your liberty interests and your freedom of movement under the Fourth Amendment.
Generally, a search or seizure conducted without probable cause is unreasonable. People v Lewis, 251 Mich App 58, 69; 649 NW2d 792 (2002). But the United States Supreme Court has determined that the Fourth Amendment permits police to stop and briefly detain a person based on “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.” Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 30-31; 88 SCt 1868; 20 LEd 2d 889 (1968). The Terry exception has been extended to incorporate “investigative stops” under a variety of circumstances for “specific law enforcement needs.” People v Nelson, 443 Mich 626, 631; 505 NW2d 266 (1993).
In order for law enforcement officers to make constitutionally proper investigative stops, they must satisfy the two-part test set forth in United States v Cortez, 449 US 411; 101 SCt 690; 66 LEd 2d 621 (1981). Id. The totality of the circumstances, as understood and interpreted by law enforcement officers, not legal scholars, must yield a particular suspicion that the individual being investigated has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.
The suspicion must be reasonable and articulable, and the authority and limitations associated with investigative stops apply to vehicles as well as people. Id. Reasonable suspicion is something more than an inchoate or unparticularized suspicion or “hunch,” but it is less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause. People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 98; 549 NW2d 849 (1996); United States v Sokolow, 490 US 1; 109 SCt 1581; 104 LEd 2d 1 (1989). The reasonableness of a police officer’s suspicion must be determined “case by case on the basis of the totality of all the facts and circumstances.” People v LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich 496, 501-502; 556 NW2d 498 (1996).
- This means that the government may stop and pull over your vehicle if the government believes that there is reasonable suspicion to believe that you have been committing a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime.
TRAFFIC STOP:
“In order to effectuate a valid traffic stop, a police officer must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a vehicle or one of its occupants is subject to seizure for a violation of law.” People v Matthew Jevon Williams, 236 Mich App 610, 612; 601 NW2d 138 (1999). A traffic stop is permissible when an officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred or was occurring. People v Marcus Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 362; 649 NW2d 94 (2002). Probable cause exists if there is a substantial basis for inferring a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime exists in the location to be searched.” People v Malone, 287 Mich App 648, 663; 792 NW2d 7 (2010).
Therefore, upon “reasonable grounds shown, a police officer may stop and inspect a motor vehicle for an equipment violation.” Matthew Jevon Williams, supra. Although a minimum threshold of reasonable suspicion must be present to justify an investigatory stop, fewer facts are needed to establish the reasonableness of a stop of a motor vehicle. LoCicero, supra at 502; People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 682; 213 NW2d 116 (1973).
Additionally, “[a] police officer who witnesses a civil infraction may stop and temporarily detain the person, for the purpose of issuing a written citation.” People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360, 366; 770 NW2d 68 (2009). An actual violation of the vehicle code need not be proven. Rather, the officer’s reasonable impression that a violation may have occurred is the dispositive question. People v Fisher, 463 Mich 881, 882; 617 NW2d 37 (2000).
A traffic violation or civil infraction provides sufficient cause to justify the stop of a vehicle. People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 420 n 8; 605 NW2d 667 (2000). However, the constitution requires an individualized, articulable suspicion to conduct a stop in the absence of a traffic or equipment violation. People v Burrell, 417 Mich 439, 450; 339 NW2d 403 (1983).
A stop may not be utilized as a pretext to search for evidence of another offense. People v Haney, 192 Mich App 207, 209; 480 NW2d 322 (1991). When police lack reasonable suspicion to support a stop, the stop is a mere pretext, and evidence derived from the search made incident to the stop or arrest is suppressed. Id. at 209-210. The constitutional reasonableness of a stop does not depend upon the actual motivations of the police officer involved. Whren v United States, 517 US 806, 813; 116 S Ct 1769; 135 L Ed 2d 89 (1996); People v Oliver, 464 Mich 184, 200; 627 NW2d 297 (2001).
However, a police officer’s “incorrect belief that a motorist is in violation of state traffic laws is insufficient to justify a traffic stop.” United States v Granado, 302 F3d 421, 423 (5th Cir 2002), superseded by statute as noted in United States v Contreras-Trevino, 448 F3d 821, 824 (5th Cir 2006).
Reasonable suspicion exists when there are specific and articulable facts that, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonable warrant the intrusion. Wren v United States, 517 US 806; 116 S Ct 1796 (1996). A police officer's "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch" is not sufficient reasonable suspicion.
- This means that the government may stop and pull over your vehicle if the government has reasonable suspicion to believe that you have committed a crime or probable cause to believe that you have committed a traffic violation. But the government may not rely on an incorrect belief that a traffic offense has actually occurred, as this would encourage government officials to fabricate laws and reasons for stopping a motorist.
- Further, the government must have objective and verifiable facts that would justify the government intrusion into the life of the private citizen. The government official may not simply guess that a crime is occurring. The government official must have actual facts or reasonable inferences from those facts to justify any dentition. The burden is on the government to prove that such a detention was appropriate.
- The stopping of a motor vehicle is an essential stage to evaluate in the drunk driving case. Was the motorist speeding or driving too fast for the conditions? Driving too slow? Swerving? Weaving? Drifting? Excessively wide turn? Stopping problems? Accelerating or decelerating issues? Stopping in a lane for no reason? Failing to use a traffic signal? Following too closely to other vehicles? Improper lane changes? Illegal turns? Were you driving in the left-hand lane without authority? Crossing over any center line? Impeding traffic? Was there defective equipment on the motor vehicle? Was the driver's vision obstructed (dangling ornament)? Was the license plate or registration information obstructed by snow or ice or for any other reason? Excessive noise coming from the motor vehicle? Non-working exhaust system? Expired registration or license sticker? Motor vehicle driving in the wrong direction?
- All of these things are used as justifications from the government for stopping a motor vehicle. But there are times when the credibility of the government official is called into question based upon the facts the circumstances. Video recordings, open microphone recordings, dispatch recordings, computer-aided dispatch (CAD) report, body cameras, and 911 recordings may be helpful in obtaining suppression of evidence or dismissal of charges relating to drunk driving cases. This is why you need an aggressive attorney to fight your case, and this is why you need to contact Lansing drunk driving attorney Eric J. Sheppard.
ROADSIDE QUESTIONING AND THE DETECTION OF ALCOHOL
If your motor vehicle has been pulled over and detained by a government official, then you will be asked to provide identification, registration information, and proof of insurance to the government official. At this point in time, the government official may believe that he or she detects the presence of alcohol based on observation of the motorists actions, speech, and additional sensory observations such as sight and smell of the motorist or the vehicle. The government official will look for bloodshot eyes, slow movements, slurred speech, shaking hands, eye fixation, gripping the wheel too tightly, slouching in the seat, erratically gesturing, and/or the strong "smell" of alcoholic beverages on the breath of the motorist or coming from inside the motor vehicle. The government official will also look to whether or not the motorist is responsive to the stopping of the vehicle and the initial questions to the motorist or whether the motorist is slow to respond, evades the government official, or otherwise impedes the investigation into the motorist and the potential for illegal activity. When the vehicle is pulled over, the government official will look for whether there was a slow response in pulling over, whether the vehicle strikes another vehicle, whether the vehicle strikes a curb, and whether the vehicle gives no response to the government official's order to pull over.
Typically, if a government official has stopped and detained your freedom of movement, and the government official is asking you questions, you must be advised of your constitutional rights. However, Michigan courts have held that certain basic roadside questioning of a motorist is acceptable without any advising of constitutional rights.
If the government official believes that he or she detects the presence of alcohol, then the officer will typically ask the motorist to step outside of the vehicle. The officer will be making additional observations of the motorist, including, but not limited to, whether the motorist exhibits: bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, loud or abusive language, inconsistent or unusual responses, or unusual actions and erratic behavior. The government official will also be looking for obvious signs of an intoxicated motorist by looking for open alcohol containers, alcoholic beverages, drugs, or paraphernalia.
The government official will ask questions of the motorist and will be observing the motorists' answers to those questions. If the government official detects alcohol in any manner, then the government official will typically have the motorist perform field sobriety tests.
Field Sobriety Tests:
- alphabet
- count down
- finger count
- walk and turn
- one-legged stand
- horizontal gaze nystagmus
- vertical gaze nystagmus
The government official will look to whether or not the motorist exhibited signs of intoxication or impairment during these tests. If the officer then believes that the motorist is intoxicated, the officer may have the motorist perform a preliminary breath test (PBT). The government official will utilize the result of the PBT and the government official's previous observations in deciding whether there is probable cause to arrest the motorist for driving while intoxicated or impaired.
ADMISSIBILITY OF PBT TEST - ADMINISTRATIVE RULES - LAW ON PBT:
Generally, a PBT is not admissible in evidence. MCL 257.625a(2)(b) states the exceptions:
(b) The results of a preliminary chemical breath analysis are admissible in a criminal prosecution for a crime enumerated in section 625c(1) or in an administrative hearing for 1 or more of the following purposes:
(i) To assist the court or hearing officer in determining a challenge to the validity of an arrest. This subparagraph does not limit the introduction of other competent evidence offered to establish the validity of an arrest.
Michigan State Police Administrative Regulation, R 325.2655(2)(b), states:
(b) A person may be administered a breath test on a preliminary
breath alcohol test instrument only after it has been determined that the
person has not smoked, regurgitated, or placed anything in his or her mouth
for at least 15 minutes.
The purpose of the Michigan State Police Administrative Rules with respect to the administration of breath tests is to ensure the accuracy of those tests. People v Rexford, 228 Mich App 371, 377-378; 579 NW2d 111 (1998); People v Boughner, 209 Mich App 397, 398; 531 NW2d 746 (1995); People v Tipolt, 198 Mich App 44, 46; 497 NW2d 198 (1993). Failure to meet the foundational requirements will preclude the use of the test results. Id. Suppression of test results is required when the deviation from the administrative rule calls the accuracy of the test into question. People v Wujkowski, 230 Mich App 181, 186-187; 583 NW2d 257 (1998).
The purpose of requiring the 15 minute observation period is to ensure the accuracy of the tests by mandating that a PBT only be administered after a test subject’s mouth has been clear of foreign substances for at least 15 minutes. People v Mullen, 282 Mich App 14, 23; 762 NW2d 170 (2008).
ARREST
If the government official determines that the motorist is operating while intoxicated or impaired, the government official will handcuff and arrest the motorist. The motorist will then be transported to a police station, where the government official will administer a chemical test on the motorist.
ELEMENTS OF COMMON DRUNK DRIVING OFFENSES:
M Crim JI 15.1 Operating While Intoxicated—OWI
The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle
(1) with an unlawful bodily alcohol level; [and/or]
(2) while under the influence of alcohol; [or]
(3) while under the influence of a controlled substance; [or]
(4) while under the influence of an intoxicating substance; [or]
(5) while under the influence of a combination of [alcohol / a controlled substance / an intoxicating substance]
M Crim JI 15.2 Elements Common to Operating While Intoxicated [OWI] and Operating While Visibly Impaired [OWVI]
To prove that the defendant operated while intoxicated [or while visibly impaired], the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) First, that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle [on or about (state date)]. Operating means driving or having actual physical control of the vehicle.
(2) Second, that the defendant was operating a vehicle on a highway or other place open to the public or generally accessible to motor vehicles.
(3) Third, that the defendant was operating the vehicle in the [county / city] of ____________________________________.
M Crim JI 15.3 Specific Elements of Operating While Intoxicated [OWI]
(1) To prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the prosecutor must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [choose from the following]:
(a) operated the vehicle with a bodily alcohol level of 0.08 grams or more [per 100 milliliters of blood / 210 liters of breath / 67 milliliters of urine];1
(b) was under the influence of alcohol while operating the vehicle;
(c) was under the influence of a controlled substance while operating the vehicle;
(d) was under the influence of an intoxicating substance while operating the vehicle;
(e) was under the influence of a combination of [alcohol / a controlled substance / an intoxicating substance]2 while operating the vehicle.
[Choose from the following alternatives:]
(2) “Under the influence of alcohol” means that because of drinking alcohol, the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle in a normal manner was substantially lessened. To be under the influence, a person does not have to be what is called “dead drunk,” that is, falling down or hardly able to stand up. On the other hand, just because a person has drunk alcohol or smells of alcohol does not prove, by itself, that the person is under the influence of alcohol. The test is whether, because of drinking alcohol, the defendant’s mental or physical condition was significantly affected and the defendant was no longer able to operate a vehicle in a normal manner.
(3) “Under the influence of a controlled substance” means that because of using or consuming a controlled substance, the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle in a normal manner was substantially lessened. To be under the influence, a person does not have to be falling down or hardly able to stand up. On the other hand, just because a person has consumed or used a controlled substance does not prove, by itself, that the person is under the influence of a controlled substance. The test is whether, because of the use or consumption of a controlled substance, the defendant’s mental or physical condition was significantly affected and the defendant was no longer able to operate a vehicle in a normal manner. [Name substance] is a controlled substance.
(4) “Under the influence of an intoxicating substance” means that because of consuming or taking into [his / her] body an intoxicating substance, the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle in a normal manner was substantially lessened. To be under the influence, a person does not have to be falling down or hardly able to stand up. On the other hand, just because a person has consumed or used an intoxicating substance does not prove, by itself, that the person is under the influence of an intoxicating substance. The test is whether, because of consuming or taking into [his / her] body an intoxicating substance, the defendant’s mental or physical condition was significantly affected and the defendant was no longer able to operate a vehicle in a normal manner.
[Choose (a) or (b) as appropriate:]
(a) [Name substance] is an intoxicating substance.
(b) An intoxicating substance is a substance in any form, including but not limited to vapors and fumes, other than food, that was taken into the defendant’s body in any manner, that is used in a manner or for a purpose for which it was not intended, and that may result in a condition of intoxication.
M Crim JI 15.4 Specific Elements of Operating While Visibly Impaired [OWVI]
[The defendant is charged with / You may also consider the less serious charge of] operating a motor vehicle while visibly impaired. To prove that the defendant operated while visibly impaired, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, due to the [drinking of alcohol / use or consumption of a controlled substance / use or consumption of an intoxicating substance / use or consumption of a combination of (alcohol / a controlled substance / an intoxicating substance)1], the defendant drove with less ability than would an ordinary careful driver. The defendant’s driving ability must have been lessened to the point that it would have been noticed by another person.
M Crim JI 15.5 Factors in Considering Operating While Intoxicated [OWI] and Operating While Visibly Impaired [OWVI]
As you consider the possible verdicts, you should think about the following:
[Choose appropriate paragraphs:]
(1) What was the mental and physical condition of the defendant at the time that [he / she] was operating the motor vehicle? Were the defendant’s reflexes, ability to see, way of walking and talking, manner of driving, and judgment normal? If there was evidence that any of these things seemed abnormal, was this caused by [drinking alcohol / using or consuming a controlled substance / using or consuming an intoxicating substance / using or consuming a combination of (alcohol / a controlled substance / an intoxicating substance)1]?
(2) You may also consider bodily alcohol content in reaching your verdict. In that regard, [was / were] the test(s) technically accurate? Was the equipment properly assembled and maintained and in good working order when the test(s) [was / were] given?
(3) Were the test results reliable? Was the test given correctly? Was the person who gave it properly trained? Did the circumstances under which the test was given affect the accuracy of the results?
(4) One way to determine whether a person is intoxicated is to measure how much alcohol is in [his / her] [blood / breath / urine]. There was evidence in this trial that a test was given to the defendant. The purpose of this test is to measure the amount of alcohol in a person’s [blood / breath / urine].
[Choose (5)(a) or (5)(b):]
(5) If you find
(a) that there were 0.08 grams or more of alcohol [per 100 milliliters of the defendant’s blood / per 210 liters of the defendant’s breath / per 67 milliliters of the defendant’s urine] when [he / she] operated the vehicle, you may find the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with an unlawful bodily alcohol content, whether or not this alcohol content affected the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.
(b) [use for acts occurring on or after October 31, 2010:] that there were 0.17 grams or more of alcohol [per 100 milliliters of blood / per 210 liters of breath / per 67 milliliters of urine] when [he / she] operated the vehicle, whether or not this alcohol content affected the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle, you may also find that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle with a bodily alcohol content of 0.17 grams or more, whether or not it affected the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.
(6) You may infer that the defendant’s bodily alcohol content at the time of the test was the same as [his / her] bodily alcohol content at the time [he / she] operated the motor vehicle.2
(7) In considering the evidence and arriving at your verdict, you may give the test whatever weight you believe that it deserves. The results of a test are just one factor you may consider, along with all other evidence about the condition of the defendant at the time [he / she] was operating the motor vehicle.
PENALTIES FOR DRUNK DRIVING AND OTHER RELATED OFFENSES
First Offense:
Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) or Operating With Any Presence of a Schedule 1 Drug or Cocaine (OWPD)
• $100 to $500 fine and one or more of the following:
◦ Up to 93 days in jail.
◦ Up to 360 hours of community service.
• Driver's license suspension for 30 days, followed by license restrictions for 150 days.
• Possible vehicle immobilization.
• Possible ignition interlock.
• Six points added to driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee:
◦ $1,000 for 2 consecutive years for OWI.
◦ $500 for 2 consecutive years for OWPD.
High Blood Alcohol Content (BAC of .17 or higher). This is one of the operating while intoxicated crimes, but it has harsher consequences.
• One or more of the following:
◦ Up to 180 days in jail.
◦ $200 to $700 fine.
◦ Up to 360 hours of community service.
• Driver's license suspension for 1 year. Eligible for restrictions after 45 days of suspension if an ignition interlock device is installed on all vehicles the offender owns or intends to operate.
• Possible metal license plate confiscation if the offender operates a vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device.
• Mandatory vehicle immobilization if the offense is subsequently convicted for operating a vehicle without a properly installed ignition interlock device.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1000 for 2 consecutive years.
Operating While Visibly Impaired
• Up to a $300 fine, and one or more of the following:
◦ Up to 93 days in jail.
◦ Up to 360 hours of community service.
• Driver's license restrictions for 90 days (180 days if impaired by a controlled substance).
• Possible vehicle immobilization.
• 4 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Second Offense within 7 Years (any combination):
Operating While Intoxicated
• $200 to $1000 fine, and one or more of the following:
◦ 5 days to 1 year in jail.
◦ 30 to 90 days of community service
• Driver's license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for 90 to 180 days, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1,000 for 2 consecutive years.
Operating While Visibly Impaired
• $200 to $1,000 fine, and one or more of the following:
◦ 5 days to 1 year in jail.
◦ 30 to 90 days of community service.
• Driver's license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for 90 to 180 days unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• 4 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Third Offense Within Lifetime (any combination) is a Felony
Operating While Intoxicated
• $500 to $5,000 fine, and either of the following:
◦ 1 to 5 years imprisonment
◦ Probation, with 30 days to 1 year in jail.
• 60 to 180 days community service.
• Driver's license revocation and denial if there are 2 convictions within 7 years or 3 convictions within 10 years. The minimum period of revocation and denial is 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for 1 to 3 years, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• Vehicle registration denial.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1,000 for 2 consecutive years.
Operating While Visibly Impaired
• $500 to $5,000 fine, and either of the following:
◦ 1 to 5 years imprisonment
◦ Probation, with 30 days to 1 year in jail.
• 60 to 180 days community service.
• Driver's license revocation and denial if there are 2 convictions within 7 years or 3 convictions within 10 years. The minimum period of revocation and denial is 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for 1 to 3 years, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• Vehicle registration denial.
• 4 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Causing Death or Serious Injury if Operating While Intoxicated, Operating While Visibly Impaired, Operating with Any Presence of Drugs, or Operating While License Suspended, Revoked or Denied (First Offense) These crimes are felonies.
• Death -- Up to 15 years imprisonment, or a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both.
• Injury -- Up to 5 years imprisonment, or a fine of $1,000 to $5,000, or both.
• Emergency Responder Death -- Up to 20 years imprisonment, or a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both.
• Driver's license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1,000 for 2 consecutive years.
Causing Death or Serious Injury if Operating While Intoxicated, Operating While Visibly Impaired, Operating with Any Presence of Drugs, or Operating While License Suspended, Revoked or Denied (Second Offense within 7 years) These crimes are felonies.
• Death -- Up to 15 years imprisonment, or a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both.
• Injury -- Up to 5 years imprisonment, or a fine of $1,000 to $5,000, or both.
• Emergency Responder Death -- Up to 20 years imprisonment, or a fine of $2,500 to $10,000, or both.
• Driver's license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• License plate confiscation.
• Vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days, unless the vehicle is forfeited.
• Possible vehicle forfeiture.
• 6 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $1,000 for 2 consecutive years.
Open Intoxicants in a Motor Vehicle
• Up to a $100 fine.
• First offense -- No action taken against driver's license.
• Second offense -- Driver's license is suspended for 30 days, followed by restrictions for 60 days.
• Third offense -- Driver's license is suspended for 60 days, followed by restrictions for 305 days.
• Alcohol screening may be required.
• points added to the offender's driving record.
Driver's License Sanctions for Drivers Under Age 21
Zero Tolerance (under age 21)
First Offense
• Up to a $250 fine, or up to 360 hours of community service, or both.
• Driver's license is restricted for 30 days.
• 4 points are added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Second Offense with 7 years
• One or more of the following:
◦ Up to a $500 fine.
◦ Up to 60 days of community service.
◦ Up to 93 days in jail.
• Driver's license suspension for 90 days. If there is a prior drunk or drugged driving conviction, there is a driver license revocation and denial for a minimum of 1 year (minimum of 5 years if there was a prior revocation within 7 years).
• 4 points are added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Person Under 21 Purchase/Consume/Possess Alcohol
• First offense -- $100 fine. No driver's license sanction.
• Second offense -- $200 fine. Driver's license is suspended for 30 days and restricted for 60 days.
• Third offense -- $500 fine. Driver's license is suspended for 60 days and restricted for 305 days.
• Alcohol screening may be required.
• Community service may be required.
Person Under 21 Transporting or Possessing Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle
• Up to a $100 fine.
• Driver's license sanctions:
◦ First offense -- No driver's license sanction.
◦ Second offense -- Driver's license suspension for 30 days, and restriction for 60 days.
◦ Third offense -- Driver's license suspension for 60 days, and restriction for 305 days.
• Alcohol screening may be required.
• Community service may be required.
• Vehicle may be impounded for up to 30 days.
• 2 points are added to the offender's driving record.
Using Fraudulent ID to Purchase Alcohol
• Up to a $100 fine, or up to 93 days in jail, or both.
• Driver's license is suspended for 90 days.
• Alcohol screening may be required.
Driving While License Suspended, Revoked, or Denied
First Offense
• Up to a $500 fine, or up to 93 days in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Second Offense
• Up to a $1,000 fine, or up to 1 year in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• Vehicle may be immobilized for up to 180 days.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
Third Offense
• Up to a $1,000 fine, or up to 1 year in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
• If there are 2 prior convictions within 7 years, there are additional consequences:
◦ License plate confiscation.
◦ Vehicle immobilization for 90 to 180 days.
Fourth Offense
• Up to a $1,000 fine, or up to 1 year in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
• If there are 3 prior convictions within 7 years, there are additional consequences:
◦ License plate confiscation.
◦ Vehicle immobilization for 90 to 180 days.
Fifth Offense
• Up to a $1,000 fine, or up to 1 year in jail, or both.
• Mandatory additional license sanction.
• 2 points added to the offender's driving record.
• Driver Responsibility Fee of $500 for 2 consecutive years.
• If there are 4 prior convictions within 7 years, there are additional consequences:
◦ License plate confiscation.
Vehicle immobilization for 1 to 3 years.
SOURCE: Michigan Secretary of State
The Law Office of Eric J. Sheppard
2109 Hamilton Road, Suite 206
Okemos MI 48864
[email protected]
PH: 517-618-1580 (office)
PH: 216-973-9996 (cell)
Fax: 517-913-6321