Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In parts 1 and 2 of this article, we looked at testing in a Detroit-area DUI case. In part 3, we began an examination of the role of education, counseling or treatment in drunk driving cases. The term “education” was used to mean something simple, like a class, or a few classes, while “counseling” was defined as a step up from that, with “treatment” being the most involved of all measures, often involving multiple facets, and often including counseling among them. We’ll pick up where we left off, noting that, even though it is required to do so, the court system is ill-equipped to diagnose and treat alcohol problems.

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.

The idea of sending someone for the kind of help that is a good fit for him or her, as opposed to cramming them into something that just isn’t “right,” is a very important aspect of helping people, and is often overlooked, especially by the legal system. As many people as it has helped, AA is not the only program out there. One might think so, however, because many meetings are filled with people there to get their attendance sheets signed after having been forced to go by some Judge or other. That’s no good.

In parts 1 and 2 of this article, we looked at the role of testing in a Tri-County area DUI case. Here, in part 3, we’re going to start exploring alcohol education, counseling, and testing, because at least one of these things is almost certain in every 1st offense DUI case, while either counseling or treatment is required in every 2nd and 3rd offense case. We’ll use the same standard – 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.

The educational/rehabilitative part of the DUI process is so important and universal that it was one of the motivating factors for me to formalize my education in this area, and complete a post-graduate program of addiction studies. I firmly believe that this is one of the most “influenceable” features of DUI cases, and is, without a doubt, where lawyer with my special background can help a client the most, making sure he or she doesn’t get hammered with unnecessary (or the wrong kind of) counseling or treatment. Remember, in the context of a DUI, less is always more.

In part 1 of this article, we began an examination of the 2 things everyone going through a DUI will be required to do: breath and/or urine testing for drugs and alcohol, and some kind of classes, counseling or treatment. After a brief history lesson, we ended with what I consider the gold standard for DUI lawyers – that success in a DUI case is best measured by what does NOT happen to you. No matter how else you put it, the job of a DUI lawyer is to protect the client from as many consequences as possible, and that includes testing, which we’ll examine in this segment.

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.

If, by some chance, a person was ordered to not drink while the case made its way through court (and for a long time, this was far more the exception, rather than the rule), there was really no way to verify if they were or weren’t, and about the only way a person could get caught violating it is if he or she had some kind of police contact (like an arrest for another case) and it was documented that he or she had been drinking.

This article is to help anyone facing a DUI to understand what he or she will experience going through the court system. To do this, it is most helpful to look back a bit, at how things used to be, in order to fully grasp the process today. Although there is a lot to a DUI in general, there are 2 key, “in your face” things that everyone will have to deal with: First, a “no drinking” order from the court, enforced by alcohol testing (and usually put in place right out of the gate), and second, some kind of alcohol education, counseling, or treatment, generally required as part of probation. I’ve broken this discussion into 4 installments to keep each one short and interesting.

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.

I’ll repeat this throughout, but the standard we’ll use is that success in a DUI case is best measured by what does NOT happen to you. When it comes to DUI cases, what is considered “tough” today was unimaginable 20-odd years ago. Moreover, what we’d consider “lenient” today, with a few exceptions, would never have been thought of as especially “lenient” back then. In other words, today’s “normal” is very different from and much more demanding than it used to be. This is really part of a national trend toward getting “tougher” on drunk drivers. While some courts tend to pile it on ore than others, our job is to try and hold the line on that and help prevent our clients from going through anything that can be avoided.

As Michigan DUI lawyers, one of the things we frequently have to deal with are people who (understandably) “compare” their DUI to someone else’s. Often, we’ll hear things like “My friend got a DUI and he…” or “This person at work got a DUI and she…” This is usually followed by an explanation of what a great break or deal the other person got, or how bad things turned out for him or her. Of course, part and parcel of this is that people usually get a lot of things wrong as they explain another person’s drunk driving case.

Although it essentially goes without saying, I’ll say it anyway: no 2 DUI cases are alike. It is, however, human nature to look for help and understanding in the similar experiences of others. We all do this, no matter what the problem. Personally, I’ve hopped online a million times and googled some problem I was having, looking for answers for everything from replacing a kitchen faucet hose to dealing with shoulder pain while bench pressing. Replacing the kitchen faucet hose is pretty much the same in all cases, assuming you have the right model. Having shoulder pain, however, just like getting a DUI, is different for every person.

To be sure, it is possible to learn some things about your situation by listening to the experience of others, but differences between any 2 cases can be anywhere from relatively minor to absolutely huge. This makes sense when you think about it, because even if 2 people are arrested at the same intersection, by the same police officer, and their cases will be heard by the same Judge, there are about a million things that can make them different enough to render either useless as the basis for measuring the likely outcome of the other.