Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

"How much do you charge for a DUI?" This is a question that I'm asked almost daily. In truth, I find it somewhat funny, because I list my Fees on my site and my blog under the section at the top marked "Fees." Look up at the top of this page. See it? It's there.

This article will examine Fees in a DUI case, and why some are so low, while others are so high, and what a person can expect to get for their money.

For what it's worth, I only handle charges brought in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties, and I charge the following for DUI cases:

1st Offense: $2400. I begin with ½ ($1200) down, and the other ½ ($1200) must be paid prior to the conclusion of the case.

2nd Offense: $30000. I begin with ½ ($1500) down, and the other ½ ($1500) must be paid prior to the conclusion of the case.

3rd (Felony) Offense: $6000. I begin with ½ ($3000) down, and the other ½ ($3000) must be paid prior to the conclusion of the case.

No one wants to pay too much, or anymore than they have to, for anything. It's no different for Legal Fees. My Fees are more than what some Lawyers charge, and less than others. Yet there are still really two competing bookends to this scenario. Many people are absolute "bargain hunters," intent on finding the lowest price on anything, regardless of quality, while others cannot help thinking that the more you pay for something, the better it must be. Most often, however, the very best "deal" lies in the middle.

I have repeated this theme throughout many of my blog articles: Looking for a Lawyer on a "low-bidder" basis is about the worst way to find quality representation. There is simply no way to not cut corners when offering a discount price. We'll come back to this later.

Continue reading "DUI Legal Fees in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties" »

If getting a DUI case dismissed outright is like winning the Powerball Lottery, then having a DUI case knocked down to a non-alcohol related Offense is like hitting the Jackpot in a raffle. As a busy DUI Lawyer, these victories are the things that become the highlights of my day-to-day Practice. I have pointed out, in many of the nearly 70 Drunk Driving articles I have published, that these kinds of outcomes are far more the exception, rather than the rule. Any DUI Lawyer will handle quite a few "garden-variety" DUI's before he or she gets one that can be knocked out, or knocked down.

This might explain why I'm so excited about a day in Court, the week before last, when, out of the 3 DUI cases on my schedule, 2 of them were knocked down to non-alcohol related Offenses. What's more, it happened in 2 different Courts!

Obtaining these breaks is not, however, just a matter of luck. It requires a detailed analysis and review of the evidence by an experienced DUI Lawyer. Sure, there is an element of luck in that there is a sufficient defect in the evidence for any particular case in the first place, but finding that defect requires looking for it, first. In a way, this parallels the old saying "you won't know if you don't ask." A Lawyer wouldn't find a problem with the evidence if he or she didn't first evaluate that evidence with a careful and critical eye.

Beyond the benefit to the Client in avoiding the whole DUI charge, and all the negative consequences that go with it, these "jackpots" refresh the Lawyer, as well. Imagine if you were mining for gold, digging through dirt, and year after year you never found any. How much enthusiasm would you be able to sustain as you continued?

In each of the two cases referenced above, the "defect" in the evidence was not something pointed out by the Prosecutor. Nor was the defect obvious. Does this mean the Prosecutor simply hadn't evaluated the case as critically as I did? I tend to think so. Prosecutors, after all, handle tons of cases, and simply don't have the time to study each one like a Defense Lawyer, whose whole focus in on that single case. Even when they do read a Police Report, it's not as if the Prosecutor is looking for a "way out."

In my first case, there was a scientific problem with the Breathalyzer evidence. It would take far too long to explain it here, but the bottom line is that I was able to point out to the Prosecutor that his case was seriously compromised, and in light of the defects in the evidence that I showed him, he had little choice but to agree.

Continue reading "DUI in Michigan -Getting 2 DUI Cases "Knocked Out" on the Same Day" »

Anyone facing a DUI understands that the breathalyzer results are very important. Those numerical results are supposed to equate to a person's Bodily Alcohol Content (BAC), and are used by the Police and Prosecutors to show that that a person was "under the influence" or "over the limit" in any Drunk Driving Case. Beyond that, once a person's BAC has been measured at the Police Station, they are not released until that number has fallen low enough to be sure the Police aren't responsible for letting an intoxicated person out of their care and custody.

In my DUI Practice, this number is important to me for a variety of reasons. It goes without saying that any DUI Lawyer, like me, looks at that number with the hope that it can somehow be challenged in a way that makes the whole DUI charge collapse. In this article we'll briefly examine the whole notion of challenging the breathalyzer.

I have pointed out that those situations in which a case can be "knocked out" because of some breathalyzer problem are more the exception, rather than the rule. This is a phrase that we'll repeat a number of times throughout this article. I simply will not set up shop and "cash in" by selling, and telling people, what they want to hear, as opposed to telling the truth. And the truth is that most DUI cases are not going to be dismissed on some breathalyzer technicality.

In a prior article entitled Michigan DUI - How the Rich and Famous Beat the Charges," I pointed out that, in most cases, they don't. I think that's a fact worth repeating. If these charges could be beaten by simple persistence, then every single celebrity and person of fame would just plunk down the cash to "Lawyer up" and get the case dismissed. Yet, almost every day, we hear of someone famous getting charged with DUI, and, sometime later, you hear about them being placed on Probation.

Why?

Because those DUI cases that can be easily knocked out are the exception, and not the rule.

Consider, for a moment, the garden-variety DUI charge. The Officer will claim to have observed the Driver swerve or in some way drive erratically. Sometimes, these observations are made (or at least claimed) after a cell-phone tip. When the person is pulled over, the Officer notes all the usual characteristics of DUI driving. Fast-forwarding a bit, after being taken to the Police Station, the end result is usually a breathalyzer (BAC) score of over, if not well over, the legal limit of .08.

Continue reading "Michigan DUI - Understanding and Challenging Breathalyzer Results" »

A fairly common question that arises in my DUI Practice is whether a Client's prior DUI occurred more or less than 7 years before the current case for which I am being hired. This is important, because a 2nd DUI within 7 years is treated as a 2nd Offense, whereas if the DUI occurs even 1 day past the 7-year mark, it is treated, by law, as a 1st Offense.

The consequences of a 2nd DUI within 7 years are substantial, at least when compared to those imposed in a 1st Offense case. While everyone's first concern is, understandably, to stay out of Jail, as a Lawyer for whom a substantial part of his Practice is Driver's License Restoration Cases, I tend to look a little deeper and worry about long-term consequences, as well.

In that regard, the DUI consequences to Driver's License is perfectly clear: If a person is convicted (meaning they are found guilty of, or otherwise plead guilty to) 2 alcohol-related Offenses within a 7-year Period, their License will be Revoked. Technically speaking, that Revocation is for life. Although they become eligible to file for a License Appeal after 1 year has passed, if they do not file, and win, and no matter if 50 years go by, they cannot ever simply go to the Secretary of State and "get" a License. They must file for and win a License Appeal, first.

This becomes even more troublesome when you add in that the Secretary of State DOES NOT grant a License back to a person who is on Probation. In order to win a License Appeal, the Secretary of State requires a person to prove a period of voluntary abstinence, meaning a period of Sobriety where they were NOT subject to any legal or punitive consequences for drinking. This means that even if a person is not tested for alcohol, the State will deem any period of time that they were on Probation as NOT a demonstrable period of voluntary sobriety.

When you factor in that most Probationary Sentences in 2nd Offense cases are for 2 years (although it can sometimes be limited to just 1 year, particularly in Macomb and certain Wayne County courts), this means a person will be without a License for at least 2 ½ to 3 years. To me, that's a huge consequence, and perhaps the biggest (and certainly the longest lasting and most expensive) of them all.

The best way for me to determine if a person has had a prior DUI within 7 years, unless the Client is absolutely sure of the dates, is to review their Driving Record. In another blog article, I described how a person goes about obtaining their Driving Record for a License Appeal, but the same process applies for any reason a person may want to examine it, or have their Lawyer look it over.

Continue reading "DUI in the Detroit Area - Is it a 2nd Offense, or not? " »

Most people have already heard about the recent change in Michigan's DUI Law increasing the Charge and Penalties for what's called a High BAC case, meaning any case where a person's Bodily Alcohol Content (BAC) is .17 or above. The new Law adds a whole new, intermediate Drunk Driving offense to the palette of DUI Laws and consequences already in place.

This article will focus on how these charges are being handled in the Local Courts of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties. In other words, what happens when a person is Stopped and Arrested in the Detroit-area for DUI and their breath or blood test results (BAC) are .17 or above.

In that regard, perhaps the first, and most important distinction we need to make in this examination is the difference between a .17 or higher BAC result, and a .17 or higher BAC charge. This distinction is HUGE.

As it turns out, the way the Law works, most 1st Offense DUI charges are Ordinance Violations, meaning there is a Local (City, Township or Village) Law against Drunk Driving. There are, or course, a number of State Laws that prohibits Drunk Driving, but the key difference between being charged under State Law, or a corresponding Local Ordinance is that the Fines assessed in any given case go to whichever entity brings the charge. This is going to requires some discussion:

Under Michigan Law, municipalities can enact Criminal Ordinances of all kinds. They cannot however, make a Law that punishes a Crime by anything more than 93 days in Jail. There are all kinds of subtleties and technicalities involved in this, but we'll skip those in favor of a more simple explanation.

State Law punishes a 1st Offense DUI by up to 93 days in Jail. Any Municipality can likewise enact its own ordinance punishing a 1st DUI by up to 93 days in Jail. When a Police Officer Arrests someone for DUI, he or she can either write them up under the Ordinance of the Municipality in which the Arrest is made (usually, the City of Township for which they work), or under the State Law. The State Police, for example, always write up any DUI under the State Law. The Clinton Township Police Department, however, will write up a 1st Offender under the Township Ordinance. This makes the Fines assessed by the Court payable to the Township. In the case where the State Police write someone up for DUI, the Fines go to the State.

Continue reading "How High BAC (.17 and Above) DUI Cases in the Detroit-Area are Being Handled" »

In part 1 of this article, we began examining the question "Do I need a Lawyer for this?" in a DUI Case. We looked at a few reasons why a person might really consider going it alone, and we examined a few risks to going into a DUI case unrepresented. In this 2nd part of the article, we'll take a closer look at what a good, qualified DUI Lawyer brings to the table in a DUI case, and why not having that kind of help places someone at a distinct disadvantage. We left off examining the role of the PSI (Pre-Sentence Investigation) and the mandatory Alcohol Assessment and how the outcome of those processes essentially results in the "blue-print" for what's going to happen to someone in a DUI Case.

If a person can have the help of a Lawyer who knows every facet of the PSI process, and fundamentally knows what specific information is being sought in an Alcohol Assessment Test, and how to score as low on it as possible, then what will happen to them in a DUI Case will be much better (meaning lenient), all other factors aside, than would be the case if they tried it alone.

The Alcohol Assessment Tests all focus on five "traits" or "markers" used in identifying an actual or potential alcohol problem:

1. Biological History,

2. Social Comment,

3. Memory Integrity,

4. Social Conflict, and

5. Effects Threshold.

Learning the meaning and application of these terms is the first step in preparing to produce a good (or low) score on whichever test is administered. And a good DUI Lawyer will have an active, working knowledge of these principles, and be in a position to teach the Client. Unfortunately, too few of those who style themselves as DUI Lawyers know the first thing about any of this. This should be a important consideration as someone "shops" around for a Lawyer.

In terms of "outcomes," a person who is properly prepared (and in my Office, this takes about 2 hours) for an Alcohol Assessment Test will usually be able to score the lowest number of points possible. There will always be some points assessed, because one of the questions asked by any test is whether or not the person taking it has ever been Arrested for any Alcohol-Related Traffic Offense. You already know the answer to that one.

What's more, some of the questions are "better" answered in a way that seems counter-intuitive. In other words, the answer that might first appear to be "common sense" may, in fact, add points to a person's score. These tests are designed to diagnose either an actual or potential alcohol problem in someone who might be very resistant to that idea. In other words, these tests take into account that a person may try to "fool" it.

Continue reading "Do I Really Need a Lawyer for a DUI in Metro-Detroit? - Part 2" »

As a DUI Lawyer, I get calls on a daily basis from people who've recently been Arrested for a Drinking and Driving Offense. One goal of the Drunk Driving section of this blog has been to address the questions that I am frequently asked. Lately, and no doubt because of the tight economy, a number of people have candidly asked "Do I need a Lawyer for this?" This article, divided into 2 parts, will examine that question.

Rather than go in the predicable direction of listing all the things that can go wrong without a Lawyer, I thought we'd start by looking at a few aspects of a typical DUI case that can actually work out favorably even without Legal Representation. Then, we'll examine exactly what a good DUI Lawyer can and will do in every case to make the outcome better than if a person had gone forward unrepresented by a Lawyer.

For the uninitiated, even the steps in a DUI Case are mysterious. In practice, however, many of those who get to the point of asking whether or not they can proceed without a Lawyer are generally smart individuals who have done their homework. They've often read all kinds of articles (including mine) about DUI's, and are somewhat familiar with the steps in a typical DUI case. Here are a few things they often learn that supports their idea of going it alone:

1. Most DUI cases are resolved by a Plea Bargain, and without any kind of Trial.

2. Some Prosecutors will not restrict the offer of a Plea Bargain to only those individuals with a Lawyer.

3. Virtually no one winds up doing Jail time in a 1st Offense DUI case.

Looking at those facts alone, the idea of spending a few thousand dollars on a Lawyer might change from an automatic response after a DUI Arrest, to something that needs a bit of consideration before a decision is made.

In terms of risks in proceeding unrepresented, let's look at a few:

1. Some Prosecutors will not offer the same quality Plea Bargain, if any, to an unrepresented person.

2. A non-Lawyer might miss a critical problem in the Evidence that could be trouble for the Prosecutor's case.

3. The Judge may not be very enthused dealing with someone choosing to "play Lawyer."

These considerations are enlightening, but do not answer the question "Do I need a Lawyer for this?"

Continue reading "Do I Really Need a Lawyer for a DUI in Metro-Detroit? - Part 1" »