OWI in a Motionless Car

DUI Motionless Car

Lansing Michigan OWI Attorney

Can you be charged and convicted of Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) if your car isn’t even running? The answer is maybe. It depends on the surrounding facts.

“Operating” a Motor Vehicle

Whether or not you can be convicted of an OWI hinges on whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were “operating” a motor vehicle on a public roadway. In 2010 we found out that “operating” doesn’t necessarily mean “driving” when Mr. Lechleitner (whose BAC was over the legal limit of .08) was attempted to push his car off an icy road when an oncoming motorist swerved and ran into a guardrail which subsequently caused another motorist to crash into that car resulting in death. Mr. Lechleitner’s defense was that pushing the car with the ignition off was not “operating” it.[1] The Michigan Court of Appeals felt otherwise. In failing to adopt the defendant’s proposed “cause to function” standard for operating, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a defendant is “operating” a motor vehicle when it is placed is motion or in a position that poses a significant risk of causing a collision. In other words, the car doesn’t have to be motion for an OWI.

Evidence of Operating a Vehicle: Case-by-Case Basis

Foot on the Brake While In Drive

There’s no bright line rule that says is A,B, and C are present then the motorist is operating for purposed of an OWI. It doesn’t really work like that. Instead, each case is different and circumstantial, as well as direct evidence, will dictate what constitutes “operating” for purposes of the OWI statute. In People v Wood[2], the defendant was found in a vehicle, engine running, and the automatic transmission in drive. Mr. Wood’s foot was on the brake pedal which kept the car from moving. The Michigan Supreme Court held he was “operating” the vehicle. The Court defined the term in relation to the danger the DUI statute seeks to prevent—the collision of a vehicle being operated by an intoxicated person. Once a car is put into motion, it poses a significant risk of collision. Mr. Wood’s vehicle would have been set in motion had his foot slipped off the brake pedal. The Court reasoned that he had not “returned the vehicle to a position posing no risk of collision with other persons or property.”

Asleep Behind the Wheel

In People v Spencley[3], the defendant was parked partially on a highway shoulder and partially in a motel driveway. The lights were on the engine was running. Mr. Spencley was asleep sitting in the car when officers approached him and subsequently placed him under arrest for OWI. The Court analysis didn’t focus so much on the operating aspect as it did that the officer’s did not have probable cause to place defendant under arrest as Mr. Spencley did not “operate” the motor vehicle infront of them. Generally, misdemeanors have to be committed in the officer’s presence for a warrantless arrest. There is an exception. An officer may place someone under arrest for OWI even if it wasn’t committed in their presence but only if there was an accident. In this case, there was not. The remedy was to suppress the evidence of the defendant’s BAC. A defendant could very well be considered to be operating a motor vehicle while asleep behind the wheel. It’s a case-by-case basis.

Using a Car as a Shelter as Opposed to Transportation

In People v Burton[4], the defendant was found in his truck at a golf course. His seatbelt was on, the engine running, and the gear was either in park or neutral. He admitted to driving on one side of the parking lot of the golf course to the other. The Court found that there was no evidence that the defendant intended to use his truck as a motor vehicle as opposed to shelter. The mere fact that the engine was running is not enough to prove intent to put it in motion. The lack of motion in this case was due to the truck being in park or neutral, which is distinguishable from the lack of motion in People v Wood as his foot being on the brake was what kept the car motionless.

Lansing Michigan OWI Lawyer

If you have been charged with an OWI, you need an experienced OWI attorney representing you. If you are charged with a drunk driving offense while your car was not in motion, you may have defenses that could get your case dismissed. Call Austin Legal Services, PLC today to speak to a Michigan DUI lawyer for a free consultation at (517) 614-1983.

Defending OWI charges throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Gratiot, Calhoun, Kent, Livingston, Jackson, Barry in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, St. Johns, Ithaca, Battle Creek, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Brighton, Howell, Jackson.

 

[1] Peo v Lechleitner, 291 Mich App 56 (2010)

[2] Peo v Wood, 450 Mich 399 (1995)

[3] Peo v Spencley, 197 Mich App 505 (1992)

[4] Peo v Burton, 252 Mich App 130 (2002)

Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and DUI

0_0_0_0_250_217_csupload_58138821

Lansing Michigan Drunk Driving Defense Attorney

 

Ordinarily a plea to a reduced charge of Operating While Visibly Impaired (Impaired Driving) or the non-alcohol related offense of Reckless Driving is acceptable to most people charged with OWI. However, for those who have a commercial driver’s license (CDL) such as: delivery persons, truck drivers, chauffeurs, bus drivers, or heavy equipment operators this will not suffice. Any sanction on a regular operator’s driver’s license will automatically result in a CDL sanction. The stakes are much higher for CDLs because unlike an ordinary driving suspension, the Secretary of State shall not issue a license to a person whose operator’s license has been suspended in any state. The Secretary of State can grant the CDL if five years has passed since the suspension period lapsed and the suspension was from a jurisdiction other than the one who issued the driver’s license.

The bottom line: if your driver’s license is suspended or restricted, you lose your CDL which means you lose your job. The only option other than a dismissal for drivers who depend on their CDL is the civil infraction of careless driving which prosecutors rarely give. That is, unless they have to or you can force their hand by making their case crumble apart.

There is also a different blood alcohol content (BAC) for those operating a commercial motor vehicle. The regular BAC of .08 does not apply. Instead, the legislators impose a more strict BAC of .04 – .08. You can lawfully operate a commercial motor vehicle only if you have a BAC less than .04. If you are charged with operating a commercial vehicle with an unlawful BAC, you face up to 93 days in jail, a $300 fine, and costs of prosecution. You may re-apply for a CDL after the suspension period of 90 days lapses. If you are convicted of such an offense two times in a seven-year period, you permanently lose your Michigan CDL. Oddly enough, the statute doesn’t address operating a commercial vehicle with a BAC above .08, but it’s safe to say the legislators were merely trying to adopt a lower threshold for those operating a commercial vehicle.

If you depend on your CDL for a living and you are charged with OWI, you have a lot to lose. That is why you need the best representation possible. Seek out an experienced Michigan OWI attorney so you can get the best possible resolve. Call Austin Legal Services, PLC today at (517) 614-1983 to speak to a Michigan DUI attorney.

 

Representing clients on DUI, OWI, and drunk driving charges throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Barry, Clinton, Gratiot, Jackson, Livingston, Washtenaw, Kent, Calhoun and in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, Haslett, Okemos, Williamston, Eaton Rapids, Charlotte, Potterville, Hastings, St. Johns, Bath, Ithaca, Alma, Jackson, Brighton, Howell, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek Grand Rapids.

Medical Marijuana DUI: Court Rules Prosecutors Must Prove Drivers “Under the Influence”

0_0_0_0_250_187_csupload_57880497Lansing Michigan DUI Lawyer
The conflict between Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA)[1] and the OWI statute has now been settled. On Tuesday the Michigan Supreme Court announced that the MMMA trumps the OWI statute[2] thus allowing medical marijuana patients to legally operate a motor vehicle unless the prosecution can prove they are “under the influence” of marijuana. This is similar to the standard for when a driver is taking prescription medication in which he cannot be guilty of drunk driving unless the medication “substantially interferes with his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the state legislatures should more specifically define “under the influence” in the MMMA.
The case is People v Rodney Koon and has been a hotly discussed and debated topic in DUI circles ever since it began. Mr. Koon was stopped for speeding around Traverse City when police seized a marijuana pipe. Koon stated he was a medical marijuana patient and thus believed he was entitled to drive his car with marijuana in his system. A blood test revealed he had 10 nanograms per milliliter (10 ng/ml) of THC in his system.
Under the OWI statute, driving with any amount of marijuana in your system is against the law. However, the MMMA states a medical marijuana patient can operate a motor vehicle unless “under the influence of marijuana.” Unfortunately, the drafters of the act didn’t elaborate any further on what they meant by “under the influence.” The prosecution’s argument was that the two statutes, when read together, clearly reveal what the legislators meant; they intended any amount of marijuana in someone’s system to be considered “under the influence.” The defense’s argument was that the legislators clearly did not intend that as that would effectively make it legally impossible for a medical marijuana patient to ever drive a car, especially since it stays in the system for up to a month. They argued that the prosecution should have to show that the marijuana “substantially effected the driver’s ability to safely operate the motor vehicle.” After all, why would the legislators allow people to use medical marijuana only to prohibit them from ever driving? Both the district and circuit courts agreed with the defense’s argument. The Court of Appeals, however, did not. 
That is when the charge began from medical marijuana patients that they would never be allowed to legally drive since at least some amount of marijuana will be present in their system, even if only used semi-regularly. While the argument sounds compelling at the onset, I found it to be rather theoretical and less realistic when examined more closely. Marijuana or THC will not register on a breath test which is the most frequently used chemical test to determine intoxication. It would show up in a blood test, but unless the officer has some reason to suspect the driver of using drugs, they don’t have someone qualified to use the DataMaster, or it hasn’t been calibrated, then it’s not likely the officer would do a blood draw. From my experience, officers generally only insist on a blood draw if they believe drugs are involved or when the driver has been in an accident and they perform a blood draw out of convenience. Nonetheless their point couldn’t completely be ignored. The real question was what was the legislative intent and if there is an apparent conflict between the two statutes, who fills the gaps– the Court or the legislators?
I don’t believe that the legislature intended for medical marijuana users to never drive again. However, they created their own dilemma by not being more precise and more clearly articulating their intentions in the MMMA. This entire problem could have been avoided by merely adding one sentence (“by ‘under the influence’ we mean…”). Surely it’s not as if they couldn’t see this becoming an issue? Or maybe it was a matter of them foreseeing that the courts would eventually bail them out, thus alleviating the need to be more specific. It’s happened before after all.
 
Just a couple of years ago the issue arose of whether a homeless person had to comply with the Sex Offender Registry’s requirement of “updating his residence.” The issue was how do you comply with such a directive when you’re literally homeless and don’t have a traditional residence or address? Michigan’s SORA had no apparent provisions to deal with this issue although many other states did. Once again the Supreme Court stepped in and instead of leaving the issue to the legislators to fix, they held that a homeless person can register a residence– he can put down his address as 123 Homeless.[3]
 
Essentially, the court has done the same thing here. Without any quantifiers to fill the gap, I think the more specific language of the OWI statute trumps the vagueness of the MMMA. The legislators can (and should) easily fix the problem by attaching a measuring unit (arbitrary number?) for the amount of THC that can be allowed in a medical marijuana user’s system while driving just like they’ve done with the .08 blood alcohol threshold. Washington has recently resolved a similar conflict by allowing up to 5 ng/ml of THC in a driver’s system to lawfully operate a car.[4] Unfortunately for Mr. Koon, even if Michigan had adopted this standard, he would have still been twice the legal limit. If anything, this ruling gives a much wider degree of latitude to medical marijuana patients because prosecutors don’t have to show that alcohol impaired or substantially effected a driver’s ability to safely operate a car.  They just have to show his BAC at the magic number of .08. 
In any event, the conflict between the two acts is now resolved. The bottom line: if you are a medical marijuana user and you’re charged with OWI, now the prosecutor has to prove you were “under the influence.” Whatever that means. Is a “legal limit” forthcoming for marijuana like the BAC for alcohol? Let’s see if the legislators clean up their mess.
If you or someone you know has been charged with DUI or OWI, contact Austin Legal Services, PLC today at (517) 614-1983 to speak to a Michigan OWI Attorney about your case.
Representing clients on drunk driving charges throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Barry, Clinton, Gratiot, Jackson, Livingston, Washtenaw, Kent, Calhoun in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, Charlotte, Hastings, Bath, St. Johns, Ithaca, Jackson, Brighton, Howell, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Haslett, Okemos, Holt, Williamston, Eaton Rapids.
[1]    MCL 333.26421 [2]    MCL 257.625(8) [3]    Peo v Dowdy, 489 Mich 373 (2011) [4]    Wash Rev Code 46.61.502(1)(b)

How I Approach a Michigan DUI Case

0_0_0_0_250_137_csupload_54758312HOW I APPROACH A MICHIGAN DUI CASE

Lansing Michigan OWI Attorney

When a client comes into my office facing a DUI they have a myriad of concerns, especially if it is their first offense. Their fears center around if they are going to jail and are they going to lose their license. This is closely followed by concerns of losing their job, scholarship, or not getting accepted into college or graduate school. After carefully explaining the process, what they are charged with, and what penalties they are facing, I explain my approach on how I handle a DUI case.

Challenging the Stop

First and foremost, I always look at the initial stop to see if there are any arguments to be made that the stop is invalid. After all, the police just can’t pull you over for any reason. They have to have “reasonable suspicion” which is a lower standard than probable cause. Anything from speeding to infractions of the motor vehicle code will suffice. Sometimes the police initiate a stop based on an anonymous call that a possible drunk driver is on the road. These have to be very carefully scrutinized as the courts have held that the information given by the caller must be very specific and not too general. The officer’s observations and length of the observation will play a critical role in determining the validity of the stop. It is very important to obtain the police reports, cruiser cam videos, and any 911 tapes to properly evaluate the stop.

This is not only the most logical place to start, but it also often proves to be the most effective because if you can get the judge to rule that the reason for the stop was insufficient, then all the subsequent evidence following the stop and arrest is invalid as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and thus, your case will be dismissed for lack of evidence. Don’t let the police trample on the Fourth Amendment– make sure they have a legally articulate reason for pulling your car over.

DUI Investigation– Field  Sobriety Tests

The next phase is to look at what happens after stop. This involves your initial encounter with the police before beginning their drunk driving investigation. Usually it starts with the police asking you to step out of the car and perform one or several field sobriety tests, concluding with the preliminary breath test and then the arrest. This is often the bulk of my investigation as there are a lot of issues at play here. First of all, the police just can’t ask you to perform field sobriety tests just because they feel like it or it’s 2:30 on a Saturday morning (although that may very well be the real reason). The police will have to point to facts that give them suspicion that the driver is drunk or impaired by some substance. This can include a lot of factors including: a strong odor of intoxicants, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, disorientation, nervousness or fumbling around, responding slowly to questions or requests, admitting to drinking… it’s a long list. I carefully examine the police report and the video to not only see if they match up, but if what they are claiming gives them adequate reason to begin the field sobriety tests such as the one-legged stand, walk-and-turn, and horizontal gaze nystagmus.

Once the field sobriety tests begin, I carefully review the video to see if they are done properly. If they are not administered properly by the officer, that can give good grounds to challenge the arrest if you can successfully eliminate the evidence that gave rise to the arrest. You would be surprised at how many times the tests are done wrong. Only someone who is trained in what to look for will be able to scrutinize the tests to check for any issues or deficiencies. Any inadequacy in either the stop or field sobriety testing can provide ammunition to either get the charge dismissed or to get a better plea offer than the standard.

The preliminary breath test is usually given at the roadside and is often the clincher in the officer deciding to make the arrest. This too must be carefully evaluated. Not only does the officer administering the PBT have to posses the proper training and certification, but there must be a 15-minute observation period prior to administering the test to make sure the subject has not regurgitated or placed anything in their mouth during that time period as it could effect the validity of the reading. It is also important to obtain the maintenance records and calibration logs for the PBT to make sure that it was properly calibrated and maintained. If not, that could possibly get the PBT results suppressed.

Chemical Test– Breath, Blood, or Urine

Next comes the chemical testing. Although the officer has a choice of breath, blood, or urine, they usually opt for the breath test by the DataMaster machine at the police station. Again, there must be a 15-minute observation period as well as the machine being maintained and calibrated and operated by someone trained and certified. Sometimes the officer chooses blood as the choice for the chemical test. Usually they only do that when they suspect the driver of having drugs in their system (the breath machine only measures breath alcohol) or the DataMaster is unavailable, not calibrated, or no one that is certified is available to operate it. Blood draws have their own unique criteria. Again, it is important that it must done by someone who is trained and qualified to do blood draws and that it was done in the prescribed manner.

Chemical Test Rights

It is also important to carefully check that the chemical test rights were given to the suspect before administering the chemical test. Usually there is a form that is checked off and signed that accompanies the police report. If these were not given or were inadequately given, there may be grounds to suppress the chemical test results. When that happens, the case is often dismissed or at least severely reduced. That is why it is critical to closely evaluate the entire police report and other information that goes along with it.

I always make sure to get all the material I need from the police department via a FOIA request. This is how you can tell a good, experienced DUI attorney from a lazy novice. The inexperienced DUI attorney will get the police report and maybe the cruiser cam video and that’s it. In order to properly evaluate the case much more is needed. Besides the police reports and cruiser cam videos, it’s also important to obtain the breath room video, calibration logs and maintenance records for the roadside PBT and DataMaster, certifications of the PBT and DataMaster operator, complaint reports and discipline records of the police officers involved with the arrest, as well as all the booking information including mugshot and fingerprints.

This is how a DUI attorney earns his fee and is worth every penny. If you’re shopping around and someone says they will represent you on a DUI for $500, run for the hills from that guy because he can’t possibly do an adequate job and put in all the time necessary to represent you. He will get the police report and maybe the videos and plea you out at the first court appearance. That is not the guy you want. The only thing worse than representing yourself is being represented by a bad attorney. A good DUI attorney will more than pay for himself. The stakes are too high and the procedure much too complicated to do it alone.

After I have decided on whether there are grounds to challenge the stop or suppress the evidence, or the judge has ruled against me on such matters, my focus now shifts to a different phase.

My first objective is to see if there is any way possible that the charge can be outright dismissed. That’s always my goal right out of the shoot. If that proves to not be the case, now we move on to what I call minimizing the damage. That means I try to work out the best plea possible with the prosecutor and the best sentencing outcome as well. The standard plea in most jurisdictions for a first offense Operating While Intoxicated (OWI), is Operating While Visible Impaired (OWVI) or Impaired Driving. This may not work for some people as while it has it benefits from the OWI charge (restricted as opposed to suspended license, less points on your driving record, lower fines and driver’s responsibility fees) it is still a substance-related offense which may not help some people depending on their profession or educational pursuits. If that is the case, the tactics must switch to pursuing a non alcohol-related conviction such as Reckless Driving.

On it’s face, such a plea doesn’t look like a suitable offer considering it carries the same points and driver’s responsibility fees as the OWI charge plus a hard suspension meaning no driving for 90 days. At best it seems a lateral plea but the benefit it that it doesn’t carry the stigma of a substance-related conviction like impaired driving. Also, if you unfortunately get charged with a DUI later on, you will be charged as a first and not a second offender. In the long run, this may help some clients even if the initial pain is more severe. You would think prosecutors wouldn’t be so reluctant to the plea but due to political pressure to get a “drunk driving conviction” they consider it a concession and usually will not willingly offer it unless persuaded with good reasoning by your DUI attorney. Financially the township, city, or county will come out the same, if not better, but it’s not as big of a feather to stick in their cap as an impaired or OWI conviction. Your best bet in obtaining Reckless Driving is on your first offense and the lower your blood alcohol content the better. If it’s your second offense, it’s harder to convince them to have sympathy for the detriment it’s going to have on your career. Absent some problems with their case to use as leverage, your best bet at getting a reckless plea is for your first offense.

Once a conviction or plea has been entered, the next step before the sentencing is the mandatory alcohol assessment by the probation department. A lot of people and attorneys just don’t realize how critical this is. It is vital that your client score the lowest they can on the assessment thus demonstrating that they are a low risk. The higher the score, the higher they look as a risk which means the worse the recommendations are from the probation department. Often the higher the score the more cumbersome and expensive the recommendations too. While jail is still a rarity for first time offenders, other punishment comes in the form of reporting probation with random and/or scheduled pbts, community service, alcohol educational classes, attending a MADD Victim Impact Panel; all of which cost money on top of your fines, court costs, driver’s responsibility fees, and higher insurance premiums. That’s why it is important to get the best score you can on the assessment. I often spend an hour or more preparing the client for the assessment and sometimes have them get an assessment shortly after hiring me to 1) give me an idea as to what their assessment will reveal, and 2) if it’s good use it as leverage with the prosecutor for getting a better deal. This is an important step than many attorneys overlook or downplay.

The conclusion of your DUI case is the sentencing. This takes place last after you and the judge have read the Presentence Report completed by the probation department. Many judges strictly or at least closely follow the recommendations but there are some that can be persuaded otherwise. That is where having a good, experienced attorney comes in handy. I prepare for sentencing just like I do the other phases of the case. It’s important to not only go over the Presentence Report for errors, but on how to respond or mitigate any unfavorable comments. It’s also important to present your client in the best light possible. This can include bringing documentation of any educational or professional accomplishments, volunteer work, family support, evidence of any AA attendance or alcohol classes that they have attended, letter of support or character reference. I prepare to point out as many good qualities that my client has in order to show the court not just their redeeming qualities, but to show the occasion that gave rise to their DUI was an anomaly, uncharacteristic, and not who they truly are. I then prepare the client on how to address the court if they wish to. I encourage clients to but some don’t and I respect that as not everyone is comfortable speaking infront of the judge in a crowded courtroom. It’s better to remain silent than for them to speak and make matters worse.

That is how I prepare for and approach a DUI case. Hopefully you can see the value in hiring someone experienced in this complex area of practice. It can be a lot of work, but the results can also be very rewarding and my goal is to always strive to get the best possible resolve for my client whether that is a dismissal, a good plea deal, or go to trial. Whatever the outcome, it all starts with preparation.

If you have been charged with DUI, OWI, or drunk driving, contact Austin Legal Services, PLC today at (517) 614-1983 to speak to a Michigan DUI lawyer to review your case.

Representing clients on charges of DUI and OWI throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Barry, Gratiot, Jackson, Livingston, and Shiawassee in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, Holt, Williamston, Okemos, Eaton Rapids, Charlotte, Hastings, Ithaca, St. Johns, Bath, Brighton, Howell, Corunna, Durand.

Field Sobriety Test: Walk and Turn

0_0_0_0_250_249_csupload_54757222Lansing Michigan DUI Attorney

FST– Walk and Turn (WAT)

This is the second of the three field sobriety tests that we will be discussing in detail. This one requires standardized instructions. The subject is instructed to perform nine steps touching heel-to-toe and is then told to turn around and perform the nine heel-to-toe steps again. However, a demonstration by the officer only consists of three heel-to-toe steps.

 

The officer is taught to look for eight clues which can off the score of the subject. They are:

  1. Unable to keep balance while listening to instructions
  2. Starting before the instructions are finished
  3. Stopping while walking
  4. Not touching heel-to-toe
  5. Stepping off the line
  6. Using arms to balance
  7. Making an improper turn
  8. Performing an incorrect number of steps

If the driver exhibits two or more clues, they fail, thus indicating intoxication.

This test requires a straight line and a reasonably dry, hard level and non-slippery surface and enough room to turn. Often a burm line or parking space line will be used if available. If the driver is wearing two-inch heels, they should be given a chance to take them off. Take as many mental notes as possible to relate to your DUI lawyer about the surrounding area. It is also best to view the place in the daytime for a more accurate observation. Again, the police report and cruiser cam videos should be carefully scrutinized to make sure the instructions were given properly and the test was administered correctly.

 

If you are facing an OWI, contact our Michigan OWI lawyer today at Austin Legal Services, PLC at (517) 614-1983.

 

Defending OWI charges throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Shiawassee, Lenawee, Jackson, Barry, Livingston, Kent, Washtenaw in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, Holt, Okemos, Delta Township, Lansing Township, Jackson, Bath, St. Johns, Jackson, Hastings, Howell, Brighton, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Corunna.

Sobriety Court

0_0_0_0_250_103_csupload_55667667

Lansing Michigan OWI Attorney

SOBRIETY COURT

In Michigan, there is a good alternative to jail for habitual OWI drunk driving offenders called Sobriety Court.

Each county has their own version along with their own criteria and the manner that it is administered. But for the most part they are rather similar with just subtle differences.

The program is voluntary and the Probation Department will make a preliminary decision if you meet the criteria. The judge ultimately is the one that has to agree, but they often follow the recommendations of the prosecution. You can still go to jail even with Sobriety Court, although it’s not as common. You also get a restricted driver’s license with sobriety court that you may otherwise not be eligible for so you can drive to court and court-mandated activities.

The program usually lasts anywhere from 18-24 months (again, the judge will decide) with three or four phases. The program usually starts off with its intensity at the highest and as if phase is completed, the intensity of the requirements slowly decreases. Again, each county has their own way they administer it, but that’s the basic way they operate. The program usually consists of meetings such as NA, AA, CA, etc., community service, random drug and alcohol testing, random home visits, intense weekly meetings with your probation officer, and monthly review hearings with the judge to determine your progress. Think of it as an intensive form of probation. Just like with probation, if you successfully comply over a period of time, your time may be reduced or some of the requirements lessened as time goes on. But also be aware that if you are not meeting your Sobriety Court responsibilities, the judge always has the option or re-sentencing and possibly sending you to prison.

All participants work together to help you succeed. The judge, the prosecutor, your probation officer all want to see you successfully make it through the program. Don’t just use it as a means of getting out of jail. Make sure you take full advantage of the benefits that it brings. If you earnestly follow the program, you are well on your way of becoming drug or alcohol free which means that you are less likely to be a participant in the criminal justice system again. And they just don’t leave you high and dry after you’re done either. Not only do you live with the skills and tools to succeed and overcome your addictions, but they will offer continuing support through various and programs and meetings that can always help you along the way whenever you need it.

Make sure to ask your lawyer if you qualify for Sobriety Court.

If you have been charged with an OWI drunk driving offense, call Austin Legal Services, PLC today at (517) 614-1983 to speak to a Michigan OWI Lawyer. You may be eligible for Sobriety Court or other options that could reduce or dismiss your charges.

 

Representing DUI Clients throughout Michigan in the counties of: Ingham, Eaton, Jackson, Livingston, Shiawassee, Kent, Clinton, Barry, and Gratiot and in the cities of: Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, St. Johns, Bath, Ithaca, Jackson, Brighton, Howell, Corunna, Grand Rapids.