As I spoke with this inquiring Lawyer, I soon learned that not only hadn't she screened her Client about his (or her, I really can't remember) Sobriety, but was pretty much aware, or at least believed, that the Client was still drinking. That's when I had to be brutally honest. To me, that a person is really and truly Sober is a first and minimum requirement before I will accept their case. Yet once I do agree to accept a case, I Guarantee that I will win the person's License back the first time, or else continue to represent them before the Secretary of State (technically, the Driver Assessment and Appeal Division, or DAAD), without further Legal Fee, until they do regain their License. In large part, I can make this win Guarantee because I don't take cases where a person isn't genuinely Sober.

I told her as much.

There's no real news in all of this. What I found so interesting was how she responded to my suggestion that she not take a case for a person who is still drinking. She pointed out that she didn't have the potential Client base that I have, and that she wanted to learn this area of the Law, get some experience, and try and establish herself, at least to some extent, as able to "do" License Appeals. She couldn't charge nearly what I do and certainly could not offer any kind of win guarantee. She felt she had no choice but to accept a "lesser" case than I would ever consider.

I thought about what she had said. No doubt, back when I was cutting my teeth, I took some cases I would never touch now. I didn't know better. Much of the "expert knowledge" I sell now was acquired in the school of hard knocks years earlier. Hopefully, experience and practice refines our skills. I know it has for me.

Yet I got lucky in one very important way; I had a background in alcohol and substance abuse assessment, counseling, diagnosis and treatment. It was then, and continues now, to be a field of study in which I have a keen interest. My undergraduate college degree is in Psychology, and I had seriously considered continuing those studies and earning a PhD, but the call to be a Lawyer was stronger. Thus, even as a young Lawyer, I knew all about Sobriety, and the important role it plays in a Michigan Driver's License Appeal.

In this third and final installment, we will look at both standard and "special" conditions of Probation, and try and get a feel for what being "on Probation" for a DUI case really means.

At this point, we can move on from our County-by-County comparison, and examine what "Probation," and being on it (especially for a Drunk Driving charge), really means. Probation begins with the Judge signing an Order, which is a document called an Order of Probation.

An Order of Probation is a list of things the Judge Orders a person to do, as well as some they are NOT allowed to do. All Courts, independent of location, forbid many of the same things while a person is on Probation. Let's look at some "standard" conditions of Probation, beginning with the things a person is Ordered NOT to do:

• Not violate any criminal law of any unit of government.
  
• Not leave the state without the consent of this court.
  
• Make a truthful report to the probation officer monthly, or as often as the probation officer may require, either in person or in writing, as required by the probation officer.
  
• Notify the probation officer immediately of any change of address or employment status.
  
• Not purchase or possess a firearm.
  
• Not consume any alcohol.
  
• Not use or possess any controlled substances or drugs without a valid prescription (medical marijuana is specifically prohibited by many Courts).

First, we'll assumImpaired Driving" (OWVI). e that the evidence against Dan is solid, that the case is not going to be magically dismissed somehow, and that his BAC (Bodily Alcohol Content) was about a .14, which is not too high (remember, .17 and above can trigger a "High BAC" charge).

Second, we'll assume that Dan's DUI, meaning his original charge of "Operating While Intoxicated"(OWI) charge will be plea-bargained down to the lesser charge of "Impaired Driving" (OWVI).

Third, we'll assume that I am handling the case. I'll make sure that when we talk about Dan being put on Probation, that means Probation with NO Jail. DUI cases are special, and properly handling them requires specialized knowledge and skill. While I can't speak for any other DUI Lawyers, I can enthusiastically advise the reader to NOT hire some Lawyer who just "does" DUI cases - along with all kind of other stuff.

Finally, we'll assume that Dan has been thoroughly prepared to take his written alcohol assessment test, and undergo the whole PSI interview.

In Macomb County, it can almost always be worked out so that a person would face no more than a year's Probation in any Court. In certain places, like Shelby Township and New Baltimore, I can probably keep my Client off of any kind of Probation, meaning that we might be able to wrap his or her case up with little or nothing more than the payment of fines and costs. In other cities, like Eastpointe, Roseville, Sterling Heights and Warren, I might be able to help the Client avoid what's called "Reporting Probation." Instead of having to show up once a month and meet with a Probation Officer, a person can get "Non-Reporting Probation," and will simply be under the "eye" of the Court for the next year. Obviously, if the person gets Arrested and/or Convicted for a new Offense, he or she will be in big trouble.

In places like Clinton Township, Romeo, and St. Clair Shores, I should be able to keep my Client's Probation to no longer than a year, although these Courts will generally require that the person does, in fact, Report for that year. If my Client's case is pending in one of these Courts, I will shift the focus of our alcohol assessment and PSI preparation from trying to completely avoid Probation, which is not likely, to avoiding the kind of "do this and do that" Probation that is sometimes called "Probation from Hell."

The bottom line is that Macomb County still is the best place to wind up facing a DUI. Now, we'll turn our attention to Wayne and the Oakland Counties.

This article will shift the focus from affecting the outcome of the PSI process to the very outcome, itself. We'll look at what being "on Probation" really means, how the conditions and terms of Probation are decided, and how that is different from Court to Court. We'll cover this subject in 3 installments in order to really understand Probation, and to make sense it.

At its simplest, Probation is an alternative to Jail. A person is put on Probation with the understanding that they will follow the rules (whatever those rules might be) set out by the Judge, at Sentencing, or else get to Jail for Violating Probation. Beyond this rather simple instruction to look at the obvious, written instructions, we must also read "between the lines" in order to get a complete picture of what being on Probation really means.

Although it is an alternative to Jail, Probation can be handed out along with Jail. The maximum legal penalty in a 1st Offense DUI in Michigan is 93 days in Jail, a Fine of up to $500, plus Court costs. Let's look at a typical 1st Offense case as an example:

If the Dan the Driver gets a 1st Offense DUI, and the Judge sends him to Jail for 93 days, he or she cannot put Dan on Probation. Dan will have "maxed out" his Sentence, and therefore, upon his release, not be subject to any further punishment by the Court. The Judge can also elect to NOT send Dan to Jail, and put him on Probation for a year, or two, with the understanding that if he screws up anywhere along the way, he can be sent to Jail for any period of time up to the whole 93 days in Jail.

A less common, but perfectly legal option is to send Dan to Jail for some period less than the full 93 possible days, and put him on Probation, with the understanding that if he screws that up, he can be sent back to Jail to serve any part of the un-served 93 days. Thus, if Dan is sent to Jail for 21 days, and then stuck on Probation for a year, there are 72 un-served day of Jail that the Judge still has "in the bank" that he or she can hand out, if Dave messes up somehow.

For all of that, "Probation" usually means "no Jail."

In a few previous articles, I specifically examined how and why a person can win a License Appeal without being involved in AA. Rather than repeat the same thing here, this shorter article will focus more on the simple fact that a person can win License without AA, and not so much how or why that's the case.

I should point out that this isn't just my opinion, either. If a person is genuinely Sober, and I accept their Driver's License Restoration Appeal, I Guarantee that I will win their case the first time, or I will continue to Represent the them before the DAAD without further Legal Fee until they do win back their License. Thankfully, with a win rate of over 98%, I don't go have to go back a second time very often.

Driver's License Restoration Appeals are heard and decided by the Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) Hearing Officers. All of my cases scheduled for a live, in-person Hearing at the DAAD's Office in Livonia, where there are 5 Hearing Officers before whom I have appeared countless times. There are 2 other Hearing Office Locations in Grand Rapids and Lansing, and numerousl remote locations that do a "video Hearing" over closed circuit TV.

It used to be the case that winning back a Michigan Driver's License without AA was almost impossible. I am told that there is still some of this bias left in the Grand Rapids and Lansing Hearing Offices; since I never go to either of those locations, I really have no first-hand knowledge about how they do things there. Instead, by having all of my cases heard in the same place, I just know what it takes to win when I handle a case. And more than half of the cases I win are for people not active in AA.

That said, most of those Clients not active in AA at the time I file their License Appeal do have some past AA attendance. While not necessary, even the shortest prior involvement with AA is helpful. The AA program, whether you love it, hate it, or just don't care about it, more or less created and provided the language of Recovery. Just about any and everything a person can learn about Recovery or Sobriety can trace its origins to AA.

To be clear, this necessary follow-up only applies to Michigan residents. Out-of-state residents do not win a Michigan Driver's License; they win a "Clearance" of the Michigan Hold on their Driving Record that allows them to obtain (or renew) a License in another state. Once they've won their first Appeal, they're done.

It's not quite so simple for Michigan residents. The Michigan Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD) requires that anyone winning a Michigan License Appeal be monitored for at least one year before they can come back and request that they be allowed to remove the ignition interlock unit from their car and be awarded a Full License. I am often asked if there is any way around this. There is not; it is required by Law.

The Hearing Officers deciding these Appeals find some security in the idea that they can keep a Driver on a kind of leash. The reader may be surprised to learn how many people on the ignition interlock wind up blowing positive for alcohol. And I'm not talking about false readings, either; I mean true-blue, bona fide proof of drinking results. Fortunately, I don't see too much of that, as I try very hard to screen out anyone who is not really and truly Sober, and committed to remaining that way. By limiting my Representation to only those people who are Sober, I can also offer a first time win Guarantee in any case that I accept.

Yet winning the first time does not, in any way, guarantee winning the second Appeal for Full Driving Privileges and removal of the ignition interlock. This does seem rather counter-intuitive; after all, if a person has had no problems for a year, and has already won their first License Appeal, what more could the state want?

As it turns out, the state wants a lot.

After that first year is up, and a person becomes eligible to file for removal of the ignition interlock and Full Driving Privileges, they must go through the entire License Appeal process all over again. The ONLY difference is that they must also bring a "final report" from the interlock company detailing how well (or not) they did with the breath-testing unit in their vehicle. We'll come back to this later.

However, while Sobriety is a "first requirement" in a License Appeal case, it is, by itself, far from enough to win. There is much more to it than that.

Within the body of the Driver's License Restoration section of this blog, I have covered the steps in a License Restoration case. Many of those articles involve multiple installments. This article will be far more summary in nature, and will address the misconception that all you need to win a License Appeal is to prove Sobriety.

In fact, a fairly common question I'm asked is "how do you prove Sobriety?" That very question demonstrates that the way one wins a License Appeal is far from obvious, and certainly not as simple as losing the privilege to drive in the first place.

Being Sober is a first requirement in a License Appeal in the same way that having a racket is a first requirement to play tennis. Having a racket doesn't mean you know anything about playing the game, other than you have to hit the ball. As it turns out, I don't know the first thing about tennis, never took lessons, and could not play the game for the life of me. I do have a racket, though, which I used to paddle the ball back and forth off of a brick wall when I was younger. I am about as ready to play tennis with a good, veteran player as someone who is "Sober" is ready to undertake a Driver's License Reinstatement case before a Hearing Officer who knows the many rules and requirements of these Appeals like the back of his or her hand.

In order to Restore a Michigan Driver's License, or to win a "Clearance," a person must be able to make all the proofs necessary under DAAD Rule 13, which is the Law that controls and governs these Appeals. Reduced to its most basic elements, Rule 13 requires that a Hearing Officer Deny a License Appeal unless the person seeking Restoration proves, by what's called "Clear and Convincing Evidence," two main things:

1. That their alcohol problem is under control, and,
2. That their alcohol problem is likely to remain under control.

In the course of the actual License Hearing, a person will be asked about their use of any prescription medications, past or present. I can only theorize, but I think when asked about this, some people feel they can demonstrate the strength of their Sobriety by admitting to having used something like the painkiller Vicodin in the past without having suffered any adverse consequences, like a relapse.

Unfortunately, the Hearing Officer won't see it that way.

Instead, he or she will see a person supposedly in Recovery who failed to tell their treatment provider about their alcohol problem. The Hearing Officer will not view this as a success, but rather a big potential problem that, fortunately, didn't come to pass.

Beyond a problem that didn't occur, the Hearing Officer will become concerned about the person's lack of understanding of the need to abstain from any and all potentially addictive, or mind and/or mood altering drugs. They'll perceive the person as a risk. Remember, the most important issue before any Hearing Officer in a multiple DUI License Appeal is that the person's alcohol or substance abuse problem is likely to remain under control. Even if a person has been Sober for years, a few spoonfuls of Codeine or a few Vicodin pills can trigger a relapse. It doesn't necessarily have to be a relapse with alcohol, either. A person Recovering from an alcohol problem can easily be lulled into a relapse with a different substance.

Up to this point, we have not examined the role that medications for mental health issues play in a Michigan License Restoration case.

Anxiety disorders, ADD and ADHD problems as well as bipolar issues, to name a few, are rather common across the population, and this is no less the case with people in Recovery. However, some estimate that as many as 60% of all people with bipolar disorder will suffer from some kind of addiction problem. This is often called a "dual diagnosis." Examination of this in any detail would require a separate article, and probably one like this, with multiple installments. For our purposes, it is only necessary to note that the DAAD looks beyond the use of medicines to treat mental health issues, focusing its concern on the underlying issue, as well, and the potential it presents as a risk for a person's "alcohol or substance abuse problems...to remain under control."

In my Practice, I believe it is critical to thoroughly examine and explore these issues with my Client BEFORE he or she ever undergoes the Substance Abuse Evaluation.

In the last installment, I noted that, as a Michigan Driver's License Restoration Attorney, I had better be the first person to learn that a person is on, or has (detectably) used the potentially addictive or mind and/or mood altering medications that is the focus of our inquiry. Here's where that "strategy" to which I alluded in Part 1 of this article comes into play, and I must take a "diplomatic pass" and trust the reader will understand that, outside of the confines of my Office, I can say little more about what happens once I learn about such use. Suffice it to say here that while the strategy varies from case to case, the key element of any such strategy is planning. Each plan, in turn, depends on the unique facts of any particular case.

I am often asked about the logistics of the urine test; some people think it is collected separately from the Substance Abuse Evaluation. It is not, at least for my Clients. The Clinic to which I refer my Clients for the required Substance Abuse Evaluation is located a few blocks from my Office, and collects their urine for the lab test. This is particularly helpful for the roughly one-half of my Clients who come from out-of-state. For those who live either out of state, or across the state, we'll arrange for their first appointment with me (which takes about 3 hours) to be scheduled the same day as their Substance Abuse Evaluation. This way, they can go right from my Office to their Evaluation.

The urine test serves several purposes beyond just showing that a person has or has not been puffing on a joint in the last few weeks.

To begin, the urine test can't just be any old urine test. The $10 do-it-yourself home test, even administered by the Substance Abuse Evaluator, will not cut it. In order to pass muster in a Michigan License Reinstatement (Restoration) Appeal, a urine test must be a "10-panel" test with at least 2 "integrity variables." Integrity variables are very much what they sound like; things that are examined in the test to make sure he sample is unadulterated or diluted.

Dilution is a big problem. If a person drinks too much water, their test will come back "diluted." Dilution is usually determined because the level of creatinine in a person's urine is lower than what's considered clinically normal. Creatinine is present in everyone's urine, and there is a guideline range that dictates what is normal, and what is not. When the level of creatinine falls below a certain amount, the urine sample is considered dilute, and therefore considered invalid. Thus, the real implication of a diluted sample is "invalid," as in adulterated, or hiding something. This can completely derail an otherwise winning License Appeal.

Reduced to its most basic level, alcoholism and drug addiction are really an addiction to getting a buzz. Alcoholics and addicts are hooked, in large part, on changing the way they feel. After a while, being "sober" is not the norm, or at least not the desired norm. Changing one's consciousness can become a psychological and/or physiological habit in some people, but not in others.

It is interesting that every Substance Abuse Counselor in the world considers this basic stuff, yet many Physicians aren't particularly well versed in it. Doctors are trained to cure diseases, treat illness and fix injuries. It is actually a somewhat rare medical specialty (not surprisingly called addiction medicine) that treats alcoholism and addiction. Other than that, about the only professional contact most Doctors have with alcoholism and addiction is when someone shows up in the ER suffering any of the many consequences of such abuse, from accidents to liver failure to overdose. And the best (and really only) advice they can give is for the person to stop and get some help. That help comes from someone who treats alcohol and substance abuse issues. With the exception of those few Doctors specializing in addiction medicine, this will almost always be a Substance Abuse Counselor.

Because they spend their time fixing injured people, and helping sick people get well, many, if not most, Physicians don't have any detailed knowledge of the proper treatment protocol for the diseases of alcoholism and addiction, and how cross-addiction and substitution are inherent risks in the addiction AND Recovery process. Besides, Doctors are usually very busy; they have limited time with each patient. Come in with a broken leg, and you'll have it set and get discharged with instructions and a prescription for painkillers.

This is a complication. This is actually a complication within other complications...

It seems that the more we analyze or talk about this, the farther reality moves away from theory...

I need to be clear about something right up front; there's a significant part of this topic that is intimately wrapped up with the strategies I use to win Restoration Appeals. As much as I'm going to pull the curtain back on this topic, like a magician talking about his show, I'm not going to reveal my "trade secrets." The fact of the matter is, much of what I know about properly handling License Restorations accounts for why I win as much as I do, and why I offer a first-time win Guarantee. This separates me from the pack of Lawyers who claim to "do" License Appeals, or who buy web site domain names with the words "license restoration" in the title. None of these operations, as far as I know, (whatever Fee they may charge), offers a Guarantee like I do.

Anyone who is truly in "Recovery" fundamentally understands that they cannot use any kind of potentially addictive, mind and/or mood-altering substance unless there is no medically suitable alternative. We're not talking blood pressure medication, or thyroid medication, or anything like that; we're talking about things like tranquilizers, painkillers, and psychotropic medications upon which people can become hooked.

I realize that there are some people who've been able to quit drinking (often without the help of AA or any kind of long-term treatment) that don't know this. Within the context of winning a License Appeal, however, they need to know it, even if I'm the one to teach them. Unfortunately, some approaches to Recovery and Sobriety fail to recognize that certain people are capable of overcoming a drinking problem without lifetime AA involvement or anything more than a commitment to never drink again, and a fundamental understanding that they cannot.

Beyond that, in the real world, there are people who have successfully quit drinking and that safely manage to use medication that would otherwise be considered potentially addictive or mind and/or mood altering without any problems.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that the Michigan Secretary of State, through its Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD), will absolutely DENY an Appeal if someone tests positive for, or otherwise admits to using any such medication without proper explanation. As we continue our analysis, we'll more fully explore the meaning and significance of testing positive for any of these medications, and what a "proper explanation" for their use really means.

In a License Appeal, the Lawyer's "voice" is a bit more understated, but no less important. In a Criminal case, the Lawyer's first job is to help shape his or her Client's side of the story, or at least their explanation for it. In a License Restoration Appeal, that "voice" helps shape the case as a whole. In an earlier article, I noted how the story of a person's Recovery is, in fact, a "story," and that a big part of my job is to help the Client put the words to it.

Imagine, for a moment, if you were sitting out on a suburban backyard patio, and suddenly, you looked up and rather surprisingly saw a deer standing about 20 feet away, just looking back at you. Now, think about how you would tell this story to different groups of people in your life:

To your small children, you'd talk about the deer like you might describe a "bunny rabbit."

To the women in your life, you'd describe the graceful beauty of the creature, with its big eyes.

To the guys you know who are big hunters, depending on your own disposition, you might not say a word, you might ask how they could shoot such a beautiful animal, or you might talk about the venison dish that "got away."

In a License Appeal, it falls to the Lawyer to help put the right voice to the story, and then, once the identity of the particular Hearing Officer who will ultimately decide the case becomes known, to fine-tune it accordingly.

I think I have the right "voice" to win a License Appeal, and, given my overwhelming success, this allows me to offer a win Guarantee. Nevertheless, I know that the voice I use in a License Appeal is neither the only one possible, nor the only one that can win. Still, my voice is strong enough to offer my first-time win Guarantee, and I don't hear any more of those amongst the chorus of Lawyers...

One thing that all people facing any kind of DWI charge have in common is the emotional strain they feel from the first moment of Police contact. In an earlier article on this very subject, I began examining the emotional impact of a DUI, and numerous times since its publication, a new Client has told me how they identified with it. In this article, I will reexamine that subject from a slightly different perspective. It seems that there is more to this topic than I was able to explore in the previous article, and I think a big part of that emotional stress is related to fear. While fear itself can be a healthy warning mechanism that keeps us safe, excessive or unreasonable fear can wreak havoc on a person's well being.

In the world of alcohol-related Driving Offenses, fear tends to lose any real value once a person has been pulled over. If fear can provide any benefit in this setting, it would be to prevent a person who's had a few too many from getting behind the wheel in the first place. Once the keys are in the ignition (it may surprise the reader to learn that, in Michigan, sitting behind the wheel in a car with the keys in the ignition, even thought the car hasn't been started, has been found by the Courts to be enough exercise of "control" over the car for that person to be charged with DUI), it's too late. All the fear in the world won't stop what's about to happen.

There is probably no unpleasant feeling a person can experience that rivals that "sinking feeling" they get when they see the Police car lights in their rear view mirror after they've been out drinking. And if we could just hit the "pause" button at that very instant for just a moment, we'd discover something very important. There is usually a very good reason for that sense of foreboding a person feels. In most cases, the Driver knows he or she is over the limit. It's not like they get that sinking feeling because they think they're about to get a speeding Ticket. Even if they rather naively hope they may get through the Police contact without the issue of drinking coming up (like that ever happens...), they know that they're in a tight spot. Ask anyone at that precise instant if they'd like to volunteer to perform some Field Sobriety Tests or take a Breath Test, and you won't see any hands raised.

In some people, alcohol impairs judgment in such a way that they think they may be able to sound sober, or talk their around, if not out of, the situation. Some may even think they can do "okay" on any kind of Field Sobriety Test. In an ironic, if not humorous twist of fate, many of these same people, when reviewing the Police car dash cam video, will see themselves after a few too many, and rather humbly say "turn it off. I've seen enough."

Some Lawyers call this "bar stool legal advice," because it is, at best, the kind of b.s. a person hears from the "expert" sitting on the next bar stool. As a Lawyer who concentrates in Drunk Driving, Driver's License Appeal and certain kinds of Criminal cases, I have had to deal with this countless times in the past. Honestly, I hate it; I have little patience and less time, really, to hear, second-hand, the amateur legal analysis of some non-Lawyer. Having endured it from my side of the desk, it has changed me as a Patient or Client or customer when I'm sitting on the other side. Ask any Lawyer or Doctor about the helpful, know-it-all relative, and you'll get a knowing smirk accompanied by a roll of the eyes.

Without fail, every time I am confronted with the expert legal opinion of some inter-meddling non-Lawyer, I have to explain how and why they are wrong. Never, in 22 years of being a Lawyer, have I learned anything I didn't already know. No one has ever made me aware of a Law or rule of which I wasn't already familiar, and I have never been presented with a strategy better than that which I already had.

Instead, when someone says "A friend of mine told me...." or, "I have a friend who is a Police Officer," or, "My brother had the exact same kind of case," I know that I'm about to have to waste some time explaining things.

No doubt the advice given by these well-meaning souls was tendered with only the best of intentions. Yet that doesn't make the advice itself any better.

To put this in perspective, I regularly represent Lawyers and their friends and families in DUI and Criminal matters. Invariably, the Lawyer, unless he or she is the Client, serves as the contact person, and explains that such a case is outside their field of experience. They understand the meaning of the saying "you don't know what you don't know." Accordingly, they defer to the person who handles such cases day in and day out - me.

Sometimes, a Lawyer will simply need information about something that is beyond their area of Practice. This happens to me, and to just about every Lawyer who has real life Clients. The more cerebral amongst us will call another Lawyer who handles the kind of matter about which we want to inquire. Why talk to someone who makes his or her living doing something else? Why would anyone with a brain listen to the advice of some "Jailhouse Lawyer?"

This uncharacteristically short article will examine "eligibility" to file a License Appeal, but not so much as an analysis of the rules affecting when a person can proceed, but rather how and why they should get a copy of their Michigan Driving Record in order for me to determine and verify that they are, in fact, eligible.

To be clear, there are just some cases so cut and dried that I don't need to review a person's Driving Record to know they're good to go. Here's where a review of the rules and consequences of multiple DUI's is helpful. The previous link will take the reader to the more detailed subsection of my website. Here, we can summarize as follows:

Two (2) DUI convictions within seven (7) years = 1-year Revocation

Three (3) DUI convictions within ten (10) years = 5-year Revocation

When someone calls, however, and has more tha 2 DUI's, and isn't clear on the dates, or they've been caught Driving after they've had their License Revoked, or has a combination of DUI's from more than 1 state, then it's best if I verify their eligibility by reviewing their Driving Record. And getting that Record is easier than ever...