It’s no secret that even a  first offense drunk driving conviction can have an immediate impact on your life. Jail time, license suspension, fines, and points on your license are some of the immediate penalties imposed upon drunk driving conviction. But what about long-term consequences?

An article recently published in the New York Times details how even a misdemeanor like a Michigan first offense drunk driving can affect an offender’s life for years after a conviction. With the state of the job market, in which each job can have hundreds of applicants, an employer can easily cut their work in the hiring process by weeding out anyone with a criminal conviction.

And, as the article states, with nine out of ten employers now running background checks on applicants, it’s not getting any easier for people to bounce back from a criminal conviction. According to the article:

“Even your lower-paying fast-food jobs are now doing background checks,” he said. “How can I pay child support if I can’t get a job?”

But long-term effects aren’t limited to just difficulty getting jobs. The NYT article also points out that a crime like a first offense drunk driving in Michigan can cause a college application to be denied.  This is because colleges and universities are routinely requiring reporting of criminal convictions in the college application process.

The problems don’t stop with job loss and loss of opportunities like college; even landlords are now running background checks before potential tenants are allowed to rent apartments.  This means that a single drunk driving conviction can cause an immediate job loss, the inability to get a new job, the inability to further opportunities through a college education, and might even result in the loss of a living place.

If you have been charged with misdemeanor or felony drunk driving in Michigan, and want to learn about how a conviction might impact your future, then please contact the Barone Defense Firm today.  Ask for attorney Ryan Ballard and he will provide you with a no-obligation consultation.

Our team of DUI experts can help you avoid a criminal conviction that could have life-changing consequences.

Michigan’s drunk driving laws increasing become more draconian, and more extensive.  For example, if you are under 21 and drive with a breath alcohol level of .02 or more, you are guilty of drunk driving.

While most people would agree that drunk driving should be against the law, what is surprising to most Michiganders that there are outdated laws still on the books that read more like satire than anything official. For example, “If you mock someone for refusing to duel, you could end up in jail for six months and fined $750”.

What makes matters worse is that while old and outdated laws are not being removed from the books, new ones are added with an ever increasing pace. What this all amounts to is that we are all potential victims of the over criminalization of America.

Over-criminalization is increasing in our state in a trend that is occurring nationally and creating cause for concern.  In 2014 the state of Michigan passed 116 new laws which is more than double the 45 crimes passed annually from 2008-2013. Knowledge is only an element to a limited number of crimes and for the majority ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Over criminalization is creating a society in which being a ‘law abiding citizen’ is a nearly impossible feat and it is estimated that everyone breaks at least one law a day often absent of criminal intent or knowledge that they are doing so.  We have been thrust forward into a society that through its leaders has given more value to consequences through criminal sanctions in lieu of resolving issues in the civil law process.

This could sociologically mean any number of things but the legal landscape is showing that more and more people can be arrested and charged with a crime without any idea an arrest and/or criminal charge could be a reality to them. Facing a criminal charge is an emotional, and terrifying experience and having the advocacy of a lawyer is a must.

The Barone Defense Firm prides itself on advocacy for the accused. Our team of compassionate experts can be reached any time by those accused of Drunk Driving and other related criminal charges.

If you have been charged with drunk driving in Michigan, or any of the many dozens of related crimes, please contact the Barone Defense Firm today for your FREE no obligation consultation.

If you are a Michigan licensed driver who also holds a CDL, then it’s important for you to know how the Michigan drunk driving laws pertain to you, and what will happen if you are convicted of a Michigan DUI.

This is because if you are like most Commercial Driver License (CDL) holders, then you rely on your CDL for employment. Without your CDL, trucking companies won’t employ you or, if you are an owner/operator of a tractor trailer, you cannot get routes. In short, if you are a truck driver with a CDL in Michigan, and you lose it, then you cannot practice your profession.

If convicted of a first offense drunk driving, in Michigan called “Operating While Intoxicated” (OWI; commonly known as driving under the influence), your CDL will be suspended for one year. This is true even if the OWI occurred in your personal vehicle.

Again, if while operating a noncommercial vehicle you are convicted of a traffic violation or criminal offense that suspends or revokes your driver’s license it will also suspend or revoke your CDL. If convicted on a DUI second or third offense, your CDL will be suspended for ten years.

If you are a truck driver, parcel delivery person, mover, or commercial vehicle mechanic with a CDL and have been charged with an OWI in Michigan, it is imperative that you hire a DUI specialist for your case. There is always something that can be done to possibly get a result that does not involve a loss of your CDL.

The DUI specialists at the Barone Defense Firm have helped many CDL holders and are determined to get results; results that preserve your  CDL and keep you on the road.

Please contact the Barone Defense Firm today and ask for attorney Ryan Ballard.  He will explain to you what steps you can take right now to help you keep your CDL, and thereby keep your job!

The November 2014 election results are in, and citizens in 6 Michigan communities voted to either completely decriminalize possession of marijuana in their communities or to deprioritize the enforcement of marijuana laws. Ballot proposals passed in Berkley, Huntington Woods, Mount Pleasant, Pleasant Ridge, Port Huron, and Saginaw. These communities join 9 others where local prohibitions on marijuana possession and/or use have already been relaxed or eliminated altogether, including Ann Arbor, Detroit, Ferndale, Flint, Grand Rapids, Hazel Park, Jackson, Lansing, and Oak Park.

So what does this mean? Possession of marijuana is still illegal under both Michigan and federal law. Under Michigan law, possession of marijuana is still a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and/or a fine of not more than $2,000. MCL 333.7403(2)(d). Accordingly, anyone in possession of marijuana could still be charged with a crime under state law even if the local law no longer prohibits possession of marijuana. Furthermore, anyone operating a motor vehicle with any amount of marijuana could be charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle with Any Amount of a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, MCL 257.625(8), unless he or she is a registered medical marijuana patient. See People v. Koon, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Supreme Court, decided May 21, 2013 (Docket No. 145259). This misdemeanor charge is often called Operating with the Presence of Drugs (OWPD). Moreover, anyone who operates a motor vehicle while “under the influence” of marijuana or while “visibly impaired” by marijuana could also be charged with a misdemeanor. See MCL 257.625(1) & MCL 257.625(3).

The Barone Defense Firm team is committed to defending our clients who have been charged with Operating Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance and Operating with the Presence of Drugs. Please call us at (248) 594-4554 if you or someone you know is ever charged with one of these offenses. We are here to help.

As drunk drivers become less common on our roads, resulting in a loss of revenue to the government, the government has decided to focus on a new public enemy: drugged driving. Americans are becoming a society of medicated persons and many of those medications may affect driving. Soon, the anti-drunk driving commercials will be replaced with anti-drugged driving commercials, with all new catchphrases. “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” or “Over the Limit, Under Arrest” may soon be talking about your “Prescription for Arrest.” While no one is advocating drugged driving, knee-jerk reactions and propaganda campaigns are not always the solution. Many times, the public outcry will tip the scales of justice towards the prosecution. Unfortunately, a mob mentality can also lead to the passage of laws that are ill considered and ill advised. The new attempt to ensnare drugged drivers may already be so overzealous, as to have an unintended victory for the defense.

Michigan Public Act 315, of the 2014 Legislative Session, which amends MCL § 257.625a, is intended to help officers in the field make more drugged driving arrests. Whether it will help – or perhaps even hurt – these efforts remain to be shown. This Act, combining House Enrolled Bill 5385 and Enrolled Senate Bill 863, was presented to the Governor on October 7, 2014. Signed on October 14, 2014, the Act will become effective on January 12, 2015. Essentially, the new Act requires suspects to perform a “preliminary roadside analysis.” Currently, any participation in field sobriety is voluntary; however, come January it will be against the law to refuse to stand on one leg or walk a straight line.

Perhaps the biggest, and likely unintended, change in the law will be the conduct of trials in OWI cases. Specifically, the new Act changes the language from “preliminary breath test” to “preliminary roadside analysis” in MCL 257.625a(2)(b). That amended section states:

(b) The results of a preliminary roadside 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.

(i) As evidence of the defendant’s breath alcohol content, if offered by the defendant to rebut testimony elicited on cross-examination of a defense witness that the defendant’s breath alcohol content was higher at the time of the charged offense than when a chemical test was administered under subsection (6).

(iii) As evidence of the defendant’s breath alcohol content, if offered by the prosecution to rebut testimony elicited on cross-examination of a prosecution witness that the defendant’s breath alcohol content was lower at the time of the charged offense than when a chemical test was administered under subsection (6)^[i]

Prior to the new Act, this section only applied to the admissibility of a preliminary breath test at trial. Under Michigan case law, it has been well settled that preliminary breath tests are not admissible, barring one of the enumerated exceptions.^[ii] Currently, any defense attorney worth his weight, is clearly wise enough to avoid any of the exceptions, preventing the admission of the preliminary breath test result at trial.

As stated, under the new law, a preliminary roadside analysis is specifically defined to include the “observation of a field sobriety test.” The change in the law to include the observations of field sobriety tests, a yet undefined term, has significant impact on the introduction of evidence at trial. As everyone knows, trials are all about which evidence comes in and which evidence doesn’t. This is the delicate game played by each side in an effort to make their case stronger or the opponent’s case weaker. Further, there are always competing interests between the public need to punish crime and the defendant’s rights to not be falsely convicted. Because the law is ambiguous in regard to what constitutes a field sobriety test, it should be assumed on the defendant’s behalf that any test given, which may indicate the suspect’s level of impairment, will be included. This leaves only the most base level observations as admissible evidence.

Barring a major error by the defense attorney, cases before a jury will now be limited to the officer’s observations of driving, the observation of a suspect’s condition, and then an acknowledgement of arrest. This will make it much more difficult for a jury to determine a defendant’s level of intoxication/impairment based upon the Jury Instructions.^[iii] Without the field sobriety testing in evidence, a breath/blood alcohol result will have less weight. It is clear that many jurors find a correlation between performance during field sobriety testing and a breath/blood alcohol result.

The new act will especially impact drugged driving cases, where medications affect people in completely different ways. Without any test to show impairment, the prosecutor may find themselves with a speeding ticket, a blood test within the medication’s prescribed dosage, and a jury saying “not guilty.”

[i] Michigan Public Act 315 (amending MCL 257.625a(2)(b)).

[ii] See People v. Keskinen, 177 Mich.App. 312, 318-319, 441 N.W.2d 79, 82 (Mich.App.,1989) (Holding: “that the trial court in this case erred in admitting into evidence the result of defendant’s preliminary breath test.”)

[iii] See Michigan Model Jury Instruction 15.5:

“(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?”