The Cerebral Michigan DUI Client
This article has been a long time in the making. One of the delights that I have as a Michigan DUI Lawyer Practicing in the Detroit-area is that most of my Clients find me as a result of doing their homework. I write extensively about how the DUI process moves along, how evidence is collected and evaluated, and how the Court system focuses the person's relationship to alcohol, to the point really, of separating the person from alcohol, at least while they're under the Court's jurisdiction. My Clients are readers. They respond to analysis, and often have thoughtful questions beyond "what's going to happen...?" To put it another way, I try and appeal to those for whom thinking is an asset.
The end result is, rather candidly, that I have a better class of Clients than many of my peers. And while that means things go well when I have a "thinking Client," it also means that my approach does NOT mesh particularly well with those who don't want to do any thinking, or don't often do much thinking, or otherwise just want to hand the keys over to some Lawyer and let him or her take care of everything. That may work if you hire an interior designer, or take your car to the mechanic and just say, "fix it," but in order to produce the best outcome in a DUI case, such a mindset is, at least to me, a pure liability.
If you are to facing a DUI charge and are lucky enough that there is some problem with evidence in the case, or how it was collected, then they "fix it" kind of Lawyer won't be a problem. Most people aren't so lucky, however. Consider this cold, hard fact: In 2011, there were 54,291 alcohol and Drug-Driving charges brought in Michigan. Of those, only 95 were beaten at Trial. Do that math. That's .17 %. That's LESS than two-tenths of one percent. If you're going to hire a DUI Lawyer and that's your plan, well, good luck with that.
If you have enough cerebral horsepower to contemplate another possible result in your case, then you're going to need a Lawyer who can help minimize the consequences. That's a rather broad statement, so we need to put some meaning to "minimize the consequences." Beyond just making things better, minimizing consequences means actually having a positive impact on crucial aspects of the case that will directly affect what happens to you.
In that sense, it means seeing if there is a way to force the Prosecutor's hand to drop the alcohol-related charge to a much less serious, non-alcohol related offense. If not that, then it can mean reducing the original OWI charge to something far more benign. Whatever happens there, it almost always means dealing with an alcohol assessment. This is a part of every DUI case that is required by Law. Prior to being Sentenced in any DUI case, a person has to undergo a mandatory alcohol assessment test. This is handled, in every Macomb, Oakland and Wayne County Court, by the Probation Department. The test itself is a written instrument theoretically designed to fix a person's place on an alcohol use continuum from normal, non-problematic drinker to problem drinker right up to late stage, chronic alcohol dependence. Doing well or poorly here will affect what actually happens to you more than anything else.
The alcohol assessment test is administered by a Probation Officer, who then "scores" it, and comes up with what essentially amounts to a diagnosis by fixing the person's place on that alcohol-use continuum. The problem is that someone can only really make a "proper" diagnosis if they have formal training (usually noted by the CAC, CAAC or similar credentials) in the alcohol and addiction Counseling field. Here's where I can help a lot more than any other Lawyer; I study this stuff. And I don't mean that I have read a few books on the subject, either. I am enrolled in the formal, post-graduate University level study of this subject. This has been a passion of mine for a long time (and before you even roll your eyes, don't you hope your Dentist is interested in things like permanent adhesives, enamel and filling materials?). It relates directly to what I do every day as a DUI Lawyer and a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer, where a person's use of and relationship to alcohol is the focal point of the case.
To be clear, I get cases "knocked out" all the time. But this can't happen in every case, nor does it happen just because you really want it to. If you're in the ditch, and the Police have to wake you up while you're sleeping behind the wheel, it's probably not a wise decision to spend your hard-earned money trying to beat that kind of case, unless there is an honest problem with the breath or blood test. Naturally, everyone hopes to have their case "knocked out," in the same way that everyone wants to be a millionaire, or wants to be beautiful and famous and special. Just wanting something doesn't make it happen, though.
As a point of interest (actually, of great interest to me), it is generally accepted in academic circles that the Judicial system (and the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division falls into that category) is 10 to 20 years behind the times in terms of understanding and using modern treatment protocols in alcohol and drug-related cases. This means that the modern trend in alcohol treatment has long ago moved away from the "AA for everybody," one-size-fits-all type approach to dealing with alcohol problems, having evolved instead to an approach that utilizes treatment tailored to the needs of the individual. The DAAD is, at least, beginning to catch up...
This is a bit of an extreme example, but it serves to underscore the larger point that where a DUI case is pending is one of the most important factors affecting it. In fact, with the exception of legal issues related to the admissibility of the evidence, the location of a DUI is the single most determinant of how things will play out. To that end, unless a DUI charge is "knocked out" somehow, what will happen to you depends in very large part on where your charge is brought.
It would have been rather easy for me to offer some unguaranteed plan to handle an Administrative Review. In fact, most people "wing" these on their own, which no doubt accounts for the overwhelmingly unfavorable results (3 out of 4 lose). Yet my goal is always to win, and beyond just talking a good game, I wouldn't think of doing anything that I couldn't back up with a Guarantee.
It goes without saying that, in cases where the 14 days haven't yet passed, I look these over rather carefully to make sure the refusal can "stick." Sometimes, it is worthwhile for me to be retained to show up and contest a refusal. Most of the time, however, it's a waste of money, and unless there is information to be gained through the cross examination of the Police Officer that may prove useful in the underlying DUI case, this can serve as a textbook example of throwing good money after bad.
