Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
In part 1 of this article, we began an examination of the updated wording regarding proper ignition interlock use that is part of every Michigan Secretary of State order granting a driver’s license restoration appeal. The large number of interlock violations makes clear that the state’s directions are not read all the way through, and I suggested moving them to the very front of the order, with clear and bold instructions to read them first. We left off by noting that merely saying it is “advisable” to get a PBT or EtG test after a power failure (tamper/circumvent) or a failed or missed breath test is at odds with the fact that, at a hearing, producing the result of such a test is, for all purposes, expected.
My team and I deal with the problems caused by the state’s use of this indecisive language (‘advisable”) all the time, in real hearings. One of the first things most hearing officers will ask if a person has a failed or missed rolling retest is whether or not he or she got a PBT or EtG test. If a person says “no,” then they’ll be asked, “why not?” Most often, the person will try and explain that they weren’t clear on the need to do that right away, or just had forgotten. Then they’re asked the most dreaded question of all: “didn’t you read your entire order?”
The hearing officers are lawyers and work as administrative law examiners (another way of saying, administrative law judges). Their main function is to evaluate and rule on the evidence in license appeal and violation cases. The legalities and nuances involved in these cases makes perfect sense to lawyers, like me, but when a regular person, who has been driving on the interlock for several months without any issues, suddenly encounters a problem, he or she doesn’t start thinking about the “burden of proof” required to win a hearing, or, what kind of evidence should I be getting together?
The instructions in each winning order lists the things that should be done if a person has a power loss (listed as “tamper/circumvent”), misses a test, or provides a positive breath sample. Even if it’s too late for those recommended PBT or EtG tests (see below), there may be enough time left to take other remedial action in order to challenge a violation. Whatever else, any problems are going to have to be satisfactorily explained to a hearing officer, whether at a violation hearing, or when a person files for full, unrestricted driving privileges. Much of this could be made better if the state fixed the language and placement of the interlock use directions.
Although most IE cases DO NOT arise because of some kind of mental health issue, there are times when it can be a symptom of either an existing or potential problem, and it falls to the courts to figure out if that is or isn’t the case, and, if so, to take the appropriate remedial action. In that regard, the 2 of the biggest risks for problems are that the person is inclined toward exhibitionism, or worse yet, does suffer from some kind of sexual deviancy problem, and needs help.
The very fact that we see less simple indecent exposure charges and more of the aggravated variety makes a good starting point. Just as about everything goes up in price over time, it seems that criminal laws always get tougher. Criminal offenses are easy targets for politicians, because there is never any partisan divide over wanting to protect the public by cracking down on drunk drivers, flashers, or the like. Being tough on crime looks good on anyone’s resume, and nobody wants to be seen as “soft.”
Two of the most important aspects of my job, and that of my team, is, on the one hand, to protect our clients from getting hammered with unnecessary counseling or treatment, while, on the other hand, making sure that any rehabilitative measures that are ordered match the needs of that particular client, at least to the extent possible within the system. Remember, we operate on the principle that success in a DUI case is best measured by what does NOT happen to you.
It was Benjamin Franklin gave us the sage advice that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Sometimes, however, it seems the courts take that a bit too far. Like alcohol testing, the idea that it’s better to be safe rather than sorry is a given in DUI cases, meaning that, as a preventative measure, a person will have to complete some kind of education, counseling or treatment for almost every 1st offense DUI case, while counseling and/or treatment is a legal requirement for anyone convicted of a 2nd or 3rd offense.
To really understand how and why alcohol testing is used as it is today, we have to step back in time, a little more than 20 years ago. Back then, a person facing a DUI here, in the Greater-Detroit area was usually not specifically ordered to abstain from alcohol (or drugs) while the case was pending, as a condition of bond. Up until the mid-1990’s, nobody had even heard of, much less used, any kind of “testing,” to make sure that a person didn’t drink while waiting for his or her case to be resolved.
A DUI is scary, but the truth is that things are probably not nearly as bad as the reader may fear. The Tri-County area of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties is a major metropolitan area, with a population of over 3.8 million people, and is home to 47 district courts, with over 110 Judges between them. Although each community that makes up the region has its own “vibe,” they’re all part of the larger metropolis, and things like jail overcrowding and a “big city” mindset means the courts here are more lenient than many distant, rural courts, that have plenty of jail space and fewer offenders.
In this article, I want to do a brief overview of what “clear and convincing” means in the real world, because it’s not only the very key to success, but is also dreadfully overlooked by just about everyone except the hearing officers who decide this cases, and anyone who finds him or herself reading an order denying their appeal. “Clear and convincing evidence” is the legal standard of proof required to win a license appeal, and it is specifically required by the rules that govern all such cases. You either meet this standard, or you lose.
If you have never been in trouble before and are an otherwise a law-abiding, good person, it is normal to experience a lot of stress as a result of getting popped for drunk driving. The good news is that most of the things you likely fear are almost certainly not going to happen to you. I don’t say that to suggest that I have some kind of special, magic formula that is only available to those who hire me, but rather because I want the reader to understand that no matter who you do or don’t hire as your lawyer, certain things (like going to jail) are almost never on menu in a 1st offense DUI case.